Now that is something interesting!  What performance expectations did it not
meet?  Throughput (# logins / second)?  Network Utilization?

Thanks,
Andy


On 10/2/08 3:16 PM, "Scott Battaglia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I probably pasted someone's example.  We've never used it successfully here.
> And by successful I mean that it met our performance expectations. ;-)
> 
> -Scott
> 
> -Scott Battaglia
> PGP Public Key Id: 0x383733AA
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbattaglia
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Ralph Feller, afelle1 <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Scott,
>> 
>> Yeah, I thought yall would have done so lest that feature might not have made
>> it into the project. =)  Though since SVN blame/praise shows you checked it
>> in at revision 39423, I was hoping you had some knowledge about the
>> configuration choices made.  Was this file provided by someone else
>> originally and simply included?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Andrew
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/2/08 2:07 PM, "Scott Battaglia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, we deploy using repcache (memcached) at Rutgers.
>>> 
>>> -Scott
>>> 
>>> -Scott Battaglia
>>> PGP Public Key Id: 0x383733AA
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbattaglia
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Ralph Feller, afelle1
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>>>> Anyone?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/1/08 2:17 PM, "Andrew Feller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Since we originally deployed CAS, a sample configuration file for Jboss
>>>>> Cache has been distributed with the CAS server (
>>>>> https://www.ja-sig.org/svn/cas3/tags/cas-3-2-1-final/cas-server-integratio
>>>>> n-jboss/src/test/resources/jbossTestCache.xml ).  Upon comparing it with
>>>>> our current configuration, I have noticed there have been several
>>>>> discrepancies, which I hoped could be explained.
>>>>> 
>>>>> JGroups discrepancies
>>>>> 1. <FD> has been commented out in favor of <FD_SOCK>
>>>>> 2. <pbcast.NAKACK> and <UNICAST> are both used
>>>>> 3. <FRAG> has been included
>>>>> 
>>>>> JBoss Cache Discrepancies
>>>>> 1. UseReplQueue, ReplQueueInterval, ReplQueueMaxElements are declared but
>>>>> are only used by asynchronous replication
>>>>> 2. TransactionManager is specified yet the online documentation for
>>>>> cluster has it being removed (
>>>>> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/CASUM/Clustering+CAS )
>>>>> 
>>>>> My primary focus is on the JGroup changes as I don't know if FD_SOCK uses
>>>>> the same notion of shunning as FD.  The source behind FD_SOCK shows
>>>>> removal of suspect members and broadcasting the removal to the cluster, so
>>>>> it should be okay.  I am also curious why the <FRAG> entity was
>>>>> introduced; were people having replication packets that were too large or
>>>>> being blocked due to size?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Andrew

-- 
Andrew R. Feller, Analyst
Information Technology Services
200 Fred Frey Building
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(225) 578-3737 (Office)
(225) 578-6400 (Fax)

_______________________________________________
Yale CAS mailing list
[email protected]
http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas

Reply via email to