Sebastian, which tool do you use to create such good looking pictures? -- With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, http://dataved.ru/ +7 916 562 8095
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:31 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > PS: Get well soon :) > > > 2013/1/15 [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> I guess Wicket will use the standard Tomcat session handling. >> Tomcat itself uses the same approach (in-memory, database or file-based) >> for clustering >> as we do. But of course it has some more advanced technologies to >> synchronize and configure as well as its more reliable then doing something >> from scratch. >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> 2013/1/15 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >> >>> I believe Wicket supports clustering. Maybe we can use Wicket session? >>> >>> I'll try to review design ASAP (I'm a little bit sick right now, might >>> take some time) >>> On Jan 15, 2013 8:21 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Maxims, >>>> >>>> please review again, I changed it even more. >>>> >>>> This SOAP/REST sync between nodes is really not good. It will be much >>>> too slow. >>>> A lightweight session object in the database as you proposed initially >>>> is better. >>>> That way every node in the cluster has a lightweight (but clustered) >>>> session store available and can redirect the user to the correct node (and >>>> we have no cluster specific code in our app). >>>> >>>> Also that way we can use a DNS load balancing as like any other web >>>> application and our HTTP traffic is clustered. Not only RTMP. >>>> I think this approach more meets the real world. >>>> >>>> Sebastian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/1/15 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> Hooray :) less components is better :) >>>>> On Jan 15, 2013 7:39 AM, "[email protected]" < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have updated the graph for the cluster architecture: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENMEETINGS/Cluster+Master-Slave+overview >>>>>> >>>>>> The biggest change is that master and slave have the same database (or >>>>>> database-cluster). That makes it a lot easier. >>>>>> The master will still need to coordinate the load, so he needs to ping >>>>>> all slaves to collect the load and redirect to the slave that has the >>>>>> least >>>>>> traffic (or that actually already hosts the requested room) >>>>>> However the slaves can handle both HTTP and RTMP traffic. There is no >>>>>> need to separate that anymore as the slave would use the same database as >>>>>> the master. >>>>>> >>>>>> For syncing the recordings and other files to the master HDD there are >>>>>> multiple solutions. One would be like Maxim proposed to do a Samba mount. >>>>>> The other is for example to use some RSync scripts. This can be >>>>>> decided by the end user on its own. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is more suitable then the previous approach and uses the >>>>>> standard mechanisms for clustering. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know what you think about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sebastian Wagner >>>>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>>>>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>>>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sebastian Wagner >>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sebastian Wagner >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >> http://www.webbase-design.de >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >> [email protected] >> > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected]
