geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject Re: Web Clustering
Date Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:35:18 GMT
Alex,

we seem to be using the same terms to mean very different things and 
this is leading to confusion.

I'll go first:

shared-store - many nodes storing their state in a common service.

replication - each node storing copies of it's state somewhere off-node 
(probably not in the same place as all the other nodes). I am suggesting 
that this 'other-place' is on the back of another web-container.

The implementation of the storage in either situation is not specified - 
I'm doing a logical design.

Affinity is load-balancing policy, which allows you to optimise caching 
(and possibly forget about session distribution entirely, if you can 
live with SPoFs), because you can predict where subsequent requests for 
a session will fall.

How do these compare to your definitions ?

Once we talk the same language, we can go forward :-)


Jules


Alex Blewitt wrote:

>> Let's number your suggestions 1,2,3 and look at them
>>
>> (1) I call this one shared store. I think 'replication' is better 
>> than shared store for the following reasons :
>>
>> - replication IS shared store, it's just the stores are in each and 
>> every node.
>
>
> The difference between 'shared store' and 'replicated store' is that 
> the latter doesn't scale as well as you add more nodes to the system. 
> If I have 1 node and 1 db, then it makes no difference, but if I have 
> 20 nodes and 1 db then a replicated store is going to generate 20x as 
> much traffic as the db variant.
>
> Usually the DB is on two machines (and clustered) so there isn't a SPOF.
>
>> - because your store is already on-node, you save a round trip to the 
>> remote store with every request for a session
>
>
> (or loading it). There's a tradeoff between having the SPOF and 
> replication, for sure.
>
>> - replication allows your cluster to be made up of homogeneous nodes 
>> rather than heterogeneous ones (i.e. web servers and session servers) 
>> - clusters are complex enough already and a management nightmare. My 
>> aim is to make them easy, out-of-the box, deployments....
>
>
> Don't understand why replication allows this specifically. Do you mean 
> that there's no need for a DB server to hold the store data? If so, I 
> agree with you -- but in almost all situations there will be a DB that 
> can be piggy-backed for this.
>
>> (2) This is affinity/sticky sessions right ?
>>
>> The one node holding the session becomes a SPoF for the client who 
>> owns the session. As soon as you add backing up the session off-node 
>> to the equation you are back at the replication (my approach) or 
>> shared store (1) approach. Except that you have the optimisation you 
>> describe in (3)??
>
>
> Yes, the one node does become a SPOF for that client. This may not be 
> acceptable (but it may be).
>
>> (3) I'm not clear on exactly what is going on in this one :-) It 
>> looks like an optimisation (in the form of affinity) that you might 
>> use to prevent continually pulling the same unchanged session across 
>> a network from a shared store - right ? I will be doing exactly the 
>> same in my model. Mod_JK will be set up (dynamically and 
>> automagically) to route requests for sessions in particular bucket to 
>> ANY node in the partition in which the bucket resides. This is 
>> affinity at the partition level. I don't have to do it at the node 
>> level, since I can guarantee that the session is in-vm on every node 
>> in the partition. There is also, as far as i can tell, no way to tell 
>> Mod_JK to route to a node, but fail-over within a partition, at the 
>> moment. (Any mod_jk people reading this list ?).
>
>
> It still had the SPOF concept, but instead of replicating the session 
> data it merely proxied to the session store on the remote server.
>
>> So, actually, we are not far adrift :-) If you really like the DB 
>> idea, perhaps we could abstract away enough from what we are doing to 
>> allow a store to be a DB...
>
>
> I think I like enough of the various possibilities to make it 
> worthwhile to abstract an interface to allow this to happen in several 
> ways. So, you could (say) start the DB-Session-Store or the 
> Affinity-Store or the Replicated-Store depending on your deployment.
>
> For a developer, for example, I'd probably go with the 
> Affinity-Store/Replicated-Store on one machine. For multiple nodes, it 
> might be easier to use the Replicated/DB-Stores, but IMHO the 
> Replicated one may give a lot of headaches to implement :-)
>
> One thing that probably is worth stating explicitly is that when 
> you're using various stores, it may not be necessary to load the store 
> in its entierity each time; just proxy through the 
> session.getAttribute("thing") to the underlying store. The store may 
> then choose to load the session as a whole, or may choose to only load 
> attribute 'thing'.
>
> It might also be worth doing a further abstracted layer to provide a 
> generic 'replicated Map' which the Session then uses. Might come in 
> handy for other things, who knows ...
>
> Alex.
>


-- 
/*************************************
 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 * http://www.coredevelopers.net
 *************************************/



Mime
View raw message