In general, I find the SOB model works well. The caching on the
server and the client provide unmatched performance. The NCF provides
a mechanism to flush the cache on updates. The Devil is always in the
details. How you set up multiple SOB servers and then get the
publishes to multiple SOB servers can certainly create scaling and
topology management issues.
Most sites to do not have the demands that AOL has - and a simple SOB
solution would be nice addition to any content distribution system.
However there are advantages to stateless systems. :-) (How's that
for diplomatic)
M
On Oct 25, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
On 2007.10.25, Jay Rohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In general, I would not recommend using sob. It was developed for
very
specific requirements at AOL and it does not scale well under load -
volume or frequency. We are in the process of replacing it with
something else.
Okay, this is just plain misinformation. SOB works very well for what
it was intended for, a low-write, high-read, distributed service for
small objects (thus, the name "SOB").
Any scaling issues AOL is having has to do with how it has since been
misused and/or operationalized.
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/
Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the
Subject: field of your email blank.
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject:
field of your email blank.
