Hi, 2009/10/27 Martin Grotzke <[email protected]>
> Hi Christian, > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Christian Becker > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> thanks for your reply :) >> >> I found the website of your company and after reading your references, now >> i am really confident that the session manager would be able to handle our >> load :) >> > Great to hear that (it makes me really glad I have to admit :)) > > >> >> Now the only thing left to do is the persuasion of our development team, >> since they have the position, that this kind of session sharing is >> impossible. >> > What are their arguments/concerns? > They argument with too big session objects and too many requests/traffic for the memcached - but i already did some calculations and there would be max. 1500 req/s, which are no problem for memcached (i have some running with more than 2,5k/sec) and traffic should also be easy to handle. > Cheers, > Martin > > > >> >> thanks again, >> christian >> >> 2009/10/27 Martin Grotzke <[email protected]> >> >> Hi Christian, >>> >>> I created the memcached-session-manager (msm) for the relaunch of one of >>> the biggest sites in germany, therefore it's designed to be performant and >>> scalable :) (the relaunch is still under development). We're just in the >>> process of integrating msm in other projects as well, as session failover is >>> often not fully covered. >>> >>> However, some users should already be using it, according to the issue >>> tracker and the mailing list (and some email conversations I had with >>> others). >>> >>> Concerning performance and stability: as the memcached-session-manager >>> itself does no resource intensive processing itself, performance and >>> stability mainly depends on memcached and spymemcached (which is used for >>> communication with memcached). Both are proven technologies which are used >>> in production. >>> >>> In terms of performance it's interesting to consider, that session backup >>> can be done asynchronously, so that your requests/responses do not have to >>> wait until the session is sent to memcached (by default, the backup is done >>> synchronously). If sessions are sent to memcached synchronously, you can >>> specify the timeout for this. I just added these things (* >>> sessionBackupAsync, sessionBackupTimeout) to the documentation, was >>> still on my list, see >>> http://code.google.com/p/memcached-session-manager/wiki/SetupAndConfiguration >>> * >>> * >>> * >>> *Cheers, >>> Martin* >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Christian Becker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> this looks really great. Since we also use tomcat for our platform, we >>>> would like to use it. >>>> >>>> But, can you please tell me a reference where you already use it? >>>> It would be great if you can tell me a bit about the performance and >>>> stability. >>>> >>>> thank you, >>>> cheers, >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> On 25 Okt., 01:38, "martin.grotzke" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > I just release memcached-session-manager 1.0: >>>> http://code.google.com/p/memcached-session-manager/ >>>> > >>>> > It's a session failover solution for tomcat, sending sessions to >>>> > memcached after a request is finished, so that this session can be >>>> > picked up by other tomcats if one tomcat fails. >>>> > >>>> > It would be great if the memcached-session-manager could be listed in >>>> > the wiki on the page for related projects: >>>> http://code.google.com/p/memcached/wiki/MemcachedOffspring >>>> > >>>> > Any other feedback is also welcome of course :) >>>> > >>>> > Thanx && cheers, >>>> > Martin >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Grotzke >>> http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/ >>> >> >> > > > -- > Martin Grotzke > http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/ >
