Joe, Can you define a bit more about what you are trying to do? Terracotta is a fine thing, but it doesn't usually give you want you have been asking for so far.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:13 PM, joe roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Michael - this is a great and helpful explanation! When you > mention "stateless set of servers", do you mean something like Terracota? > If not, is there another solution that you would recommend? I actually > started reading about Terracota and I also run into this: > > http://www.smartfoxserver.com/ > > Which seems to be a Java based game server that uses Terracota. > > Regards, > > Joe > > > > On 6/8/2014 11:18 PM, Michael Rose wrote: > > You could make Storm do what you want, but it's not going to work well for > you. A normal client/server is vastly more suited to the type of workload > you want. > > UDP may have less overhead, but overall a stall in processing is much > more costly. In a datacenter, TCP is the way to go for reliable > communications. UDP is popular between game client & server because of > packet loss's effect on TCP RTT, and packet loss is common between > consumers and game servers. Not as much between DC nodes. > > Storm's support for other languages isn't exactly anything special. You > could effect the same interface in non-Storm code. Again, Storm can do > processing in low-latency situations (<100ms), but it's not what you want. > You really, really don't want Storm for this application. A custom > application (yes, you can indeed use Netty UDP) will be much much better > for you. > > If your game server is just running business logic, a totally stateless > set of servers is really the way to go. > > Michael Rose (@Xorlev <https://twitter.com/xorlev>) > Senior Platform Engineer, FullContact <http://www.fullcontact.com/> > [email protected] > > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Why do you think that UDP is faster? >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:27 PM, joe roberts < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> To make it faster! >>> >>> >>> On 6/8/2014 8:27 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM, joe roberts < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Also, it seems Storm uses TCP via ZeroMQ by default -Is that right? >>>> And if so, can it be switched to use UDP or UDT instead, perhaps by >>>> replacing ZeroMQ with Netty? >>>> >>> >>> Why would you want that? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
