Hi Nirmal,

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Nirmal Fernando <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Supun,
>
> Here's my thoughts.
>
> ELB != clustering / cluster messaging
>
true, not what I meant actually, rather, ideally since when we got away
with clustering, we could not be dependent on the ELB as well.


>
> In most of the deployments today/tomorrow, you will need a load balancer.
>

LB won't always be our ELB..

>
> And if you think from a user point of view, adding a new MB server in
> order to get depsynch is not accepted *always*.
>

Yes for that we will have the embedded MB (minimized) on the products.

>
> What I suggested was,
>
> since (ELB == a Carbon server) --> ELB also has a embedded MB features -->
> You can run topics inside ELB
>
> Hence, in a deployment, where ELB involves, you can use its embedded MB
> for communication, instead of using MBs in each mgt node. That way ELB gets
> to know the topology dynamically and all other nodes in the system should
> only need to know ELB (we can think this as well known node of the system).
>

So how are we going to do the deployment in a smallar setup where there is
no ELB or a different LB is used?.

thanks,

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Supun Malinga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nirmal,
>>
>> IMO we shouldn't involve ELB for this. Main reason to move to MB based
>> depsync is to move out of the cluster messaging dependency and
>> communication issues with that. Here itself we should not again complicate
>> the process involving ELB. IMO depsync and ELB relationship is not logical.
>> In a smaller deployment mgt node should have the MB capabilities and in a
>> larger deployment we can have a separate MB for the purpose..
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Isuru Haththotuwa <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Nirmal Fernando <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Pradeep Fernando <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> During the recent depsync related meeting, the above $subject came up..
>>>>> here are the some of the discussion points.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Currently our depsync setup uses cluster messages to send the
>>>>> repository sync message
>>>>>  - Message loss is a one issue with the current approach. message
>>>>> replaying can be done, but not the proper way to do it.
>>>>> -  We can use JMS/MB as the communication mechanism between depsync
>>>>> nodes.
>>>>> - the solution scales well, message persistence is there by default.
>>>>>
>>>>> Approach,
>>>>>
>>>>> - We ship a embedded MB server with our every product. (p2 feature
>>>>> installation is one/server profile/ etc is open for discussion)
>>>>> - manager node starts up the MB server, worker nodes read from it.
>>>>> - LB can load balance across cluster either using static endpoints or
>>>>> can get the endpoint details from the MB itself - LB doe not have to use
>>>>> clustering anymore..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using static endpoints is not suiting for a scaling dynamic
>>>> environment. In the case of having our ELB, we could create a topic per a
>>>> cluster within ELB and then let nodes subscribe to the well known ELB's
>>>> matching topic.
>>>>
>>>> If there's no LB involved, one mgt node can create a topic which
>>>> corresponds to its domain and then let other nodes subscribe to this Well
>>>> known topic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or we can allow configuring the topic names based on whatever the
>>> clusters that would be there. ELB can too subscribe to a topic in the same
>>> MB (or whatever the communication bus) so that it can receive information
>>> on endpoints dynamically.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerns,
>>>>>
>>>>> How are we going to incoperate these changes to future releases.
>>>>> Deployment is part of the carbon kernel. If we are to implement above 
>>>>> there
>>>>> are kernel changes. what is the expected release version,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> --Pradeep
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Thanks & regards,
>>>> Nirmal
>>>>
>>>> Senior Software Engineer- Platform Technologies Team, WSO2 Inc.
>>>> Mobile: +94715779733
>>>> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>
>>> Isuru H.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Architecture mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Supun Malinga,
>>
>> Senior Software Engineer,
>> WSO2 Inc.
>> http://wso2.com
>> email: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> mobile: +94 (0)71 56 91 321
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks & regards,
> Nirmal
>
> Senior Software Engineer- Platform Technologies Team, WSO2 Inc.
> Mobile: +94715779733
> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>
>


-- 
Supun Malinga,

Senior Software Engineer,
WSO2 Inc.
http://wso2.com
email: [email protected] <[email protected]>
mobile: +94 (0)71 56 91 321
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to