Doesn't seem to have that much of an effect. I guess I should profile it though. I don't want to use session persistence because then I would need to use network session clustering. Session clustering is a requirement for my app. I figure using a DB instead of memory to store my sessions is better than sending 5 network connections to the other 5 of the 6 web servers with the session data that will only be valid to ONE of those servers. Before tomcat we were using Iplanet 4.1 and the cisco load balance we have SAID it could handle session affinity but it didn't seem to be able to. So we went with a DB solution which, to me, seems to be the more optimal solution. The DB also means I can have a MUCH larger number of active sessions using my servers because I don't have to worry about the sessions using all my memory. I just have to worry about DB disk space but I had have 2 or 3 terabytes of disk while only have 2 GB of memory. Seems to be an easy trade. --Angus
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:40 AM > To: Tomcat Users List > Subject: RE: how to suppor 30000 concurrent users > > > Angus, > doesnt using a shared jdbc based session manager slow the > whole thing down > a lot? Why dont you just use session persistence? > Pete > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
