Christopher Popp a écrit :
Emmanuel Lcharny wrote:
That would be crazy :)
Really, MINA does that for you. One simpe rule: one client, one session. One
hundred thousands clients, one hundred thousands sessions (it has been tested
up to these numbers ;)
Out of curiosity, how was a test of one hundred thousand clients performed on a machine with a 65k socket limit?
You can handle more than 65k sockets on a server (at least on a Unix
based server), I don't know about W$).
Did the server bind to multiple addresses? We just had a test proceed with some success with 128k sessions across our cluster, but this is across 8 servers (16k sessions each) built on MINA, and each JVM sharing some information through Terracotta.
I guess that if your servers get loaded, you must spread the sessions on
multiple machines. What kind of oad do you see on those machines ?
We've only ran into one problem that has eluded us so far that seemingly
causes all of the sockets in use by our JVM to get messed up, causing MINA
sessions, the Terracotta client connection, and our database connections to be
lost. We're running the tests with instances on Amazon EC2, so one thing we're
going to try is running it on some physical servers. Some blogs regarding
network performance of Amazon EC2 have been less than stellar in their reviews
of it, and we're being pretty tough on them.
We certainly would be interested to get some numbers from 'the real
world' :) If you can share some information on your MINA usage here,
that would help us to see how far we can go with MINA : many people are
asking us what kind of performance MINA can provide in such env.
Thanks !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
