On 06/28/2013 09:19 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Hi Martin,
i already saw and consider your memcached-based session management, thanks.
the reason i ask the wicket mailing list is, that i assume that wicket
only needs part of the pagemap (namely the current page) to serve a
request, so that - hopefully - the data needed to serve a single request
can be smaller if the pagemap is kept seperate from the session.
is this assumption correct?
cu uwe
I think you should ask this question in Tomcat mailing list.
Also check https://code.google.com/p/memcached-session-manager/
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Uwe Schäfer <u...@codesmell.de> wrote:
hi
quick question about clustering: am i right to believe that putting
session/pagemap data in a memcached-like storage has advantages over the
tomcat session clustering in terms of latency and robust failover behaviour?
i mean, the latter obviously has the data nearby (when assuming sticky
sessions) whereas the first needs to grab it from (and push it to) external
storage every time even though it is far more selective about what it needs.
i was wondering if tomcat session clustering can effectivly update only
the dirty parts of the session data?
i'd love any kind of feedback on that topic INCLUDING 'depends'-answers :)
cu uwe
------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
users-unsubscribe@wicket.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
