> If you share your assertions or whatever, there will be a cost in CPU and > network traffic to do that synchronisation
You're correct that there would be a network latency cost for any conceivable solution, but I'm fairly certain network latency per se is largely negligible in a capable HA setup. The cost of synchronization would vary with the storage backend: - JBossCache: notable, but smaller these days with buddy replication - Terracotta: likely considerable, but don't have enough experience to estimate - memcached: zero - RDBMS: zero > Depending on the kind of synchronization, you can also consume really more > memory : instead of having 1000 assertions on each node (for n nodes), > you will have n * 1000 assertions on each node (each node has all assertions). I would argue N-way synchronization is a poor solution for non-critical authenticated state data. If you have concerns of exceeding storage limits, buddy replication would be a better solution. > At limit, the synchronization cost will exceed the gain to add a node in > cluster I don't have any numbers to challenge that assertion, but I'm fairly confident you've overstated it quite a bit with the technologies we would consider as storage backends for the Java client. M -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
