> I agree. Plus you get better performance: with sticky sessions, you only
> serialize once per session modification, otherwise, you pay the price twice.
Sorry, but I don't see what you mean.
You're saying that replica servers do NOT need to deserealize the sessions
they get, unless they need to use them?
Otherwise, I see no logic in your statement of serialize 1 time vs
serialize 2 times.
What I think is that:
1 - Cluster nodes A,B,C
2 - Session1 is created in A
- A serializes Session1 and sends to group by multicast
- B and C get the message, and unserialize session1. They now have
session1 replica in memory
3a)- Session1 is changed in A (sticky session load balancing)
- A serializes Session1 and sends to group by multicast
- B and C get the message, and unserialize session1. They now have
session1 replica in memory
3b)- Session1 is changed in B (LB without sticky session)
- B serializes Session1 and sends to group by multicast
- A and C get the message, and unserialize session1. They now have
session1 replica in memory
I see no performance difference in using either a dunmb LB or a sticky
session LB. So, if there is, the cenario I just described is wrong. Please
describe me why!
Thank you
Joao Clemente
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber - The world's fastest growing
real-time communications platform! Don't just IM. Build it in!
http://www.jabber.com/osdn/xim
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
