> I am > wondering what would be more latency sensitive or even bandwidth intensive, > Jboss Cache or database replication.
I have no idea, but it would be valuable to the community to know. I hope you will share the results if you take the time to measure. > If I am doing ticket storage at the > cluster level across datacenters, then database level replication is only > for persistence right ? If you choose the JpaTicketRegistry component, ticket storage _is_ persistence. The only real issue you need to consider to make CAS work in a cluster is ticket storage. You can have as many nodes in the cluster as needed, located wherever needed, as long as each shares a common ticket store. > So, by your last statement its best to span the > cluster across the datacenters over TCP ? I think having CAS server nodes in both datacenters that comprise a single logical CAS server cluster is the way to go. How you replicate between them, both at the network layer (TCP, multicast) and the application layer, will be determined by the storage technology and your availability/capacity needs. You're likely going to have to prototype with something and measure the performance, and if it doesn't measure up, try something else. You might read up on the replication overhead of JBoss Cache and memcached so you can make a wise choice on what to try first. 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-user
