On Tuesday 26 February 2008 10:51 pm, Andrew Miehs wrote: > I do not see the issue as a too high load problem. > > Let us assume 50,000 users online. > Most of the users never send any traffic, so they do not actually > create a load problem. > > However, there is a difference between 50K tcp connections to the > jabber server, versus 50 (1 per server) connections in total.
Sure. And this is what I was talking about. For example, if you use jabberd/jadc2s, then you set up 50 "edge" servers running jadc2s. Each edge server is capable of handling 1000 client connections, and each connects just once to a "master" jabberd. So the master jabberd only has 50 connections, each connection handling 1000 clients worth of traffic. The protocol between jadc2s and jabberd is internal and specific to that combination of software. From the outside, jadc2s appears like any normal XMPP service. Connecting clients do not know or care about how the overall system works internally. One possibility for you would be to make each web server an "edge" server. That is, you run jadc2s on each web server, and the backend of the web client simply connects to the web server's own local jadc2s instance (localhost connection). Then each web server maintains just one connection to a single backend jabberd. To be honest I don't know how relevant the jabberd/jadc2s combination is anymore. Ejabberd or Openfire may offer better load-balancing options. My point is simply that this is not really a protocol issue, but a server deployment/implementation issue. -Justin
