On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Stuart Bishop <stuart.bis...@canonical.com> wrote: > I've refactored this into parts and added the client side code I think > we need. I've also added ZeroMQ as an alternative transport.
Cool!. I'd like to tie https://dev.launchpad.net/ArchitectureGuide/ServicesRequirements in here: the server and the client should be in separate trees so that the LP isn't *able* to bypass stuff and import the server. e.g. gpgverify_client. > Branch is at lp:~stub/+junk/gpgverify > > Random thoughts: > > ZeroMQ seems to do what it says on the tin. > > Unlike HTTP, we need to define our own protocol. This gives us more > flexability, but also more to think about. > > HA story is the same (by putting servers behind HAProxy), or better > (we could plug in our own broker which whatever features we can dream > up, such as persistent queues or services registering themselves > instead of hard coded addresses and ports). I think once you have a broker 0mq starts to look a lot more like haproxy+http; its real strengths lie in point to point arrangements. Of course, as I'm still a total noob, this is probably wrong :) > ZeroMQ doesn't need Apache. With ZeroMQ, we can write and test our own > HA and failover stories. This is very difficult when HA and failover > requires HAProxy. But HAProxy probably provides a good enough story > for us, is already production ready and has a decent admin interface. > > ZeroMQ services need ipfilter configuration to open the port. HTTP > services need HAProxy & Apache love, and possibly the ipfilter config > too if Apache is not local. > > If we are putting together complex services, I think ZeroMQ would be a > win. But at least at this stage, I think we want simple services and > the HTTP services are less of a surprise. I personally am leaning > towards whatever is easiest to deploy and maintain, as from the dev > side there seems little real difference. If we abstract out the > transport in a similar way to my example code, there will be no > difference. ZeroMQ would have a superior deployment story if we put > the effort into a common broker and had services register themselves > as they come up and down, but not by much since there isn't much work > adding the new service to the HAProxy configuration. I'm very glad we're getting some experience with different protocols; let the party continue :). -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
