Cool. Thanks for the info. Hanson
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:26 AM > To: 'Turbine JCS Users List' > Subject: RE: newbie question on remote caching > > > On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 11:22, Hanson Char wrote: > > My assumptions are based on the use of either TCP or UDP transport > > protocols. > > > > For UDP, the broadcasting is not reliable, hence cache > items will gradually > > get out-of-syn. > > > > For TCP, a peer-to-peer broadcasting model means n(n+1) TCP > connections > > among the n nodes, versus 2(n-1) in the case of using RCS. > Hence it's just > > too expensive. > > > > The catch-22 of either being too expensive or too > unreliable leads me to my > > (potentially incomplete) conclusion. > > Ahhh, okay. I agree with both conclusions actually, but > building on top > of javagroups addresses these concerns I believe. By using > multicast UDP > we can eliminate the n(n+1) issue. Then, by implementing a reliable > retransmit protocol on top of that (which javagroups does already) we > get reliability. > > It's a really clean solution IMHO. Javagroups provide so > much. It can be > configured to simulate multicast with unicast if required, or to > traverse firewalls, or any number of other things... > > I'm still testing, but I'm planning on moving to it from the > TCP lateral > soon. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
