Ah, I guess i understood the question a bit wrong then. Sticky mode is preferred with wicket, as we use redirect to buffer render strategy by default. Also from a performance standpoint, I'd recommend sticky mode.
As for the page store, what i suggested was a merely performance improvement. Since you 'd have clustered disk page store, there's no need to replicate the last accessed page over the cluster using the standard session replication. So what my suggestion would do is that you'd have only a _very_ small (couple of hundreds of bytes) replicated session state. -Matej On 9/28/07, mchack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While looking at load balancer options I was trying to see if the non session > sticky mode was an option. Obviously there are a bunch of issues I hadn't > considered such as threading mode and concurrent client access. It is clear > I will stick with the original plan of session sticky mode. > > -mike > > > Johan Compagner wrote: > > > > Why don't you want session sticky load balancing? > > > > How does none sticky sessions work then? If there are 2 request comming in > > then wicket makes sure > > that the page is access in one thread. So that the page is not changed by > > 2 > > threads at the same time > > Does your application server lock over the nodes when there are 2 or more > > request comming in from the same client? > > If not how does it then sync up again? How does it "merge" the pages? > > > > johan > > > > > > > > On 9/28/07, mchack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I am deploying my application in a clustered environment. Eliminating > >> session > >> sticky load balancing would be an advantage for me. Session data is > >> already > >> replicated in a clustered environment. Are the mechanics in place to > >> share > >> the Page Cache with other machines if I use a clustered file system that > >> allows concurrent access in this way providing non sticky LB across the > >> cluster? > >> > >> -Mike > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-Question---Can-the-2nd-Level-Page-Cache-be-shared-in-a-clustered-filesystem-configuration--tf4531607.html#a12932067 > >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Clustering-Question---Can-the-2nd-Level-Page-Cache-be-shared-in-a-clustered-filesystem-configuration--tf4531607.html#a12937318 > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
