On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Tomasz Sterna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We were talking with Ono today about merging all jabberd 2 sub > applications (router, c2s, s2s, sm) into one binary, with multiple > threads running each components. > That would mainly reduce maintenance and deployment effort. You would > run one process instead of several ones. > And wouldn't keep one from running each component in separate process - > just run only one thread+component in each instance. > I believe this would be a mistake. The original design is to scale across multiple computers. I think it is an easier and better way to scale. Just ask the ejabberd guys. I do not think I would continue to use jabberd2 if this decision was made. I use it for the sole reason to have the components spread across computers. Connecting components to jabberd2 works better than ejabberd too, the router is nice. I think a better project would be a load balancing router where you can even further scale jabberd2 components when they get loaded down. So you can have multiple sessions managers running that handle one jid. Or multiple muc components that can handle one jid. > With such design there are some performance optimisations possible in > router, that could just pass pointers to data instead of pushing the > data through TCP sockets. > There are some problems with current single-thread design of jabberd, > but we think they are easily solvable. Ex. static buffers with thread > local-storage. > > What do you think about this idea? > Is it worth pursuing? Or not worth the effort? > > > -- > /\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna > (/^/(_^^' http://www.xiaoka.com/ > ._.(_.)_ im:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
