I will take a closer look at it. My first impression was that activecluster assumes a jms or jms-like api as a transport.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>Given the inherent over head in total order protocols, I think we >>>should work to limit the messages passed over the protocol, to only >>>the absolute minimum to make our cluster work reliably. >>>Specifically, I think this is only the distributed lock. For state >>>replication we can use a much more efficient tcp or udp based protocol. >>> >>> >> >>As I said, if your workload has low data sharing (e.g. session >>replication), you should not use totem. It's designed for systems where >>_each_ processor needs _most_ of the messages. >> >> > Geronimo has a number of replication usecases (I'll be enumerating them > in a document that I am putting together at the moment) Totem may well > suit some of these. If we were to look seriously at using it, I think > the first technical consideration would be API. Geronimo already has > ActiveCluster (AC) in the incubator and WADI (An HttpSession and SFSB > clustering solution is built on AC). AC is both an API to basic > clustering fn-ality and a number of pluggable impls. My suggestion would > be that we look at how we could map Totem to the AC API. > > Do Totem and AC (http://activecluster.codehaus.org/) look like a good > match ? > > > Jules > > > -- > "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of > string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system > crystallises out around it." > > /********************************** > * Jules Gosnell > * Partner > * Core Developers Network (Europe) > * > * www.coredevelopers.net > * > * Open Source Training & Support. > **********************************/ > >
