geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Thomas <r.n.tho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [wadi-dev] Re: [Geronimo] Clustering
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:03:32 GMT
On 1/12/06, Jules Gosnell <jules@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
>
> Ryan Thomas wrote:
>
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I'm really interested in the clustering side of geronimo, I'm just
> > checking the source out of subversion now (on dialup until saturday -
> > so it's a slow process).
> >
> > Any tips on where to start looking in the source?
>
> It's currently scattered around a number of external and incubated
> projects.
>
> Which areas interest you the most - web, ejb, jndi, deployment,
> management/monitoring, pojo... ?
>
> Let us know and I will hook you up :-)


I'm interested in the deployment and lifecycle management as well as the
overall cluster management (node discovery, failover etc).

Having used JBoss for a number of years (writing and deploying apps), I
think that the clustering is one of the coolest parts!!

If you could hook me up with anything in those area's I'd much appreciate
it.

Cheers,

-Ryan

Jules
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -Ryan
> >
> > On 1/12/06, *Jules Gosnell* <jules@coredevelopers.net
> > <mailto:jules@coredevelopers.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     Jules Gosnell wrote:
> >
> >     > Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >     >
> >     >> Jules, I think you are spot on with a summary at this point.  At
> >     >> least in my conversations a person's view of clustering is
> >     influenced
> >     >> by which aspect of clustering they are intersted in.  I think a
> >     short
> >     >> doc would be really helpful here.  Were you planning on doing
> >     that or
> >     >> would you like some help?
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Matt,
> >     >
> >     > The more I look at the amount of work that needs doing the more
> >     help I
> >     > think I need !
> >     >
> >     > I am away this weekend, but I will try to put together a document
> >     > skeleton early next week that defines the areas that we need to
> >     cover.
> >     > Then we can refer back to various discussions on the list to
> >     flesh out
> >     > the relevant areas. I'm not sure of the best way of making this
> >     > document available so that everyone can contribute - but we can
> >     worry
> >     > about that when we have one.
> >     >
> >     > Do you have a pet clustering area ? Have we discussed it ?
> >     >
> >     > Jules
> >     >
> >     Guys,
> >
> >     I am on this - just have had a very busy week. I'll get back to
> >     the list
> >     with the goods ASAP.
> >
> >     Jules
> >
> >     >>
> >     >> Jules Gosnell wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >>> Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> >     >>>
> >     >>>> Hmm,  again we have stopped the discussion :). Lets get it
> >     started
> >     >>>> again.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> OK - I will pick it up. I've been a bit preoccupied with WADI
> >     for a
> >     >>> while, so apologies for letting this one go cold.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> So can we all come to some agreement (with more discussion)
on
> >     >>>> which direction we might be taking !!
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> Like merging ActiveCluster and WADI or getting best of both
> >     worlds ?
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> hmmm...
> >     >>>
> >     >>> not sure I follow you here...
> >     >>>
> >     >>> are you suggesting merging them because you view them as (a)
> >     >>> competing or (b) complimentary technologies ?
> >     >>>
> >     >>> If (a), then I need to put you straight. WADI is a technology
> that
> >     >>> builds on top of ActiveCluster (AC). AC provides basic
> clustering
> >     >>> fn-ality (most importantly, a membership abstraction along with
> >     >>> notifications of membership change).
> >     >>>
> >     >>> If (b), then, whilst WADI and AC could be merged, the current
> >     >>> separation is along clear and modular lines and I see no
> advantage
> >     >>> to collapsing the two projects into one.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> I think that there is far more reason to consider a merger
> >     between
> >     >>> ActiveSpace (AS). AS is a project that also builds upon
> >     >>> ActiveCluster to provide distributed caching fn-ality. The
> >     >>> fundamental difference (and I stand open to correction from
> James
> >     >>> here - I'm not very knowledgeable about AS) is that AS provides
> a
> >     >>> host of optimistic caching strategies, whilst WADI (currently)
> >     >>> provides a single, pessimistic strategy specifically designed
> for
> >     >>> the management of state in web and ejb tiers, where the sum of
> the
> >     >>> state in the tier is too great to be held by any single node.
> >     >>> Because WADI and AC fulfil similar roles, I think that there
> >     is more
> >     >>> to be gained by unifying their APIs and code-sharing between
> them.
> >     >>> James, if you are reading, what do you think ?
> >     >>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> And also if we can define expectations/requirments for what
> >     we like
> >     >>>> for the next possible release (1.01 or whatever) in terms of
> >     >>>> clustering would give folks like me more direction as to where
> we
> >     >>>> should concentrate on?
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Well, I think that there has been plenty of discussion, but
> >     you are
> >     >>> correct in pointing out that there is no grand unified
> >     architecture
> >     >>> document out there. I did start on my suggestions towards one
> >     >>> quietly a while ago, but canned them. Perhaps enough
> >     discussion has
> >     >>> now occurred to put up a straw man ? Is this what you are
> >     looking for ?
> >     >>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> If we decide on a direction maybe a few of us can start on
a
> few
> >     >>>> prototypes and see what works best for Geronimo.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Rajith, judging from our conversations on this list, your
> interest
> >     >>> seems to lie in JNDI clustering ? I think that we need to get
> >     you,
> >     >>> Gianny Damour (working on OpenEJB/WADI integration), James
> >     Strachan
> >     >>> (ActiveSpace) and Kresten Krab (Trifork guy involved in IIOP
> >     stuff,
> >     >>> which needs to be worked into equation) into a thread.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> OpenEJB will need cluster aware client-side proxies, delivered
> >     from
> >     >>> HA-JNDI. These proxies will need to talk to EJBs via OpenEJB's
> >     >>> proprietary protocol and Trifork's IIOP impl (I'm not on my home
> >     >>> ground here, so I might be off-base - but that is what the
> >     thread is
> >     >>> for). HA-JNDI needs a clustering substrate - ActiveSpace best
> fits
> >     >>> the bill (JNDI will be small amounts of data that are
> >     write-seldom
> >     >>> and read-often).
> >     >>>
> >     >>> One other issue that meshes with all of this is deployment. I've
> >     >>> given some thought to clustered deployment recently and come
> >     to the
> >     >>> conclusion that a deployment/app/?service? is simply a piece of
> >     >>> write(/[un]deploy)-seldom, read(/invoke)-often data. A
> deployment
> >     >>> may result in a number of entries being merged into HA-JNDI, an
> >     >>> undeployment may result in a number being removed. If a new node
> >     >>> joins a cluster (or subset of) that is responsible for
> >     providing an
> >     >>> HA-service/app, then that node should deploy an instance of
> >     that app
> >     >>> as it comes up and remove it as it goes down - i.e. a copy of
> that
> >     >>> app should be distributed to it and maintained by it for the
> >     >>> lifetime of the node, just as a jndi entry might be by a
> >     distributed
> >     >>> JNDI service.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> I haven't gone over these ideas with anyone else yet,
> particularly
> >     >>> with regards to the relevant JSR, but I guess they need to be
> >     thrown
> >     >>> out into the ring and discussed.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Does everyone think that now is a good time to summarise the
> >     various
> >     >>> discussions that have occurred about clustering into some sort
> of
> >     >>> unified structure ? This can then be further discussed and
> >     hopefully
> >     >>> used to carve up work and produce a roadmap ? This is probably
> >     over
> >     >>> ambitious for a 1.0.1 release (it may just be a bug-fix
> >     release ?),
> >     >>> but something that we need to be getting on with.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Jules
> >     >>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> Regards,
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> Rajith Attapattu.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>> On 1/5/06, *Rajith Attapattu* <rajith.attapattu@redknee.com
> >     <mailto:rajith.attapattu@redknee.com>
> >     >>>> <mailto:rajith.attapattu@redknee.com
> >     <mailto:rajith.attapattu@redknee.com>>> wrote:
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     -----Original Message-----
> >     >>>>     From: Jules Gosnell [mailto: jules@coredevelopers.net
> >     <mailto:jules@coredevelopers.net>
> >     >>>>     <mailto:jules@coredevelopers.net
> >     <mailto:jules@coredevelopers.net>>]
> >     >>>>     Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 9:55 AM
> >     >>>>     To: dev@wadi.codehaus.org <mailto:dev@wadi.codehaus.org>
> >     <mailto:dev@wadi.codehaus.org <mailto:dev@wadi.codehaus.org>>
> >     >>>>     Cc: wadi-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >     <mailto:wadi-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >     >>>>     <mailto:wadi-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >     <mailto:wadi-dev@incubator.apache.org>>; dev@geronimo.apache.org
> >     <mailto:dev@geronimo.apache.org>
> >     >>>>     <mailto: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> >     <mailto:dev@geronimo.apache.org>>
> >     >>>>     Subject: Re: [wadi-dev] Re: [Geronimo] Clustering
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     James Strachan wrote:
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     > On 19 Dec 2005, at 14:14, Jules Gosnell wrote:
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     >> James Strachan wrote:
> >     >>>>     >>
> >     >>>>     >>> On 19 Dec 2005, at 11:53, Jules Gosnell wrote:
> >     >>>>     >>>
> >     >>>>     >>>> , whether there is other suitable Geronimo
or
> >     ASF-licensed
> >     >>>> code
> >     >>>>     >>>> available, or whether we will need to
write our own
> >     WADI-
> >     >>>>     >>>> autodiscovery classes. The important thing
is to
> >     impose as
> >     >>>> few
> >     >>>>     >>>> dependencies on the client as possible.
The client
> >     side code
> >     >>>>     >>>> should  literally be a few lines. Clients
using
> >     clusters
> >     >>>> should
> >     >>>>     >>>> not  suddenly find themselves sucking
down e.g. the
> >     whole of
> >     >>>>     >>>> activemq,  just to do a once off autodiscovery.
Early
> >     >>>>     versions of
> >     >>>>     >>>> WADI had its  own autodiscovery code.
If we need them,
> >     >>>> they could
> >     >>>>     >>>> be resuscitated.
> >     >>>>     >>>
> >     >>>>     >>>
> >     >>>>     >>>
> >     >>>>     >>> There's no reason why you can't do a simple
> >     implementation of
> >     >>>>     >>> ActiveCluster which doesn't use ActiveMQ -
its just a
> >     >>>> simple API.
> >     >>>>     >>
> >     >>>>     >>
> >     >>>>     >> Sure - but I'm talking about the EJB-client side
-
> >     where we
> >     >>>> just
> >     >>>>     >> want to throw across as thin a line as possible,
in
> >     order to
> >     >>>>     haul a
> >     >>>>     >> decent strength cable back. An EJB client would
not
> >     need the
> >     >>>>     >> ActiveCluster API (I'm not thinking in terms of
making
> EJB
> >     >>>> clients
> >     >>>>     >> fully fledged cluster members), but simply a way
of
> >     locating
> >     >>>> the
> >     >>>>     >> cluster and requesting a membership snapshot of
it.
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     > Thats exactly what the ActiveCluster API is for :).
> >     Though by
> >     >>>> all
> >     >>>>     > means come up with another API if you can think of
a
> >     better
> >     >>>> way of
> >     >>>>     > doing it.
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     >> This could be done by just broadcasting a query
packet
> >     at a
> >     >>>> well
> >     >>>>     >> known multicast address and waiting for the first
> >     well-formed
> >     >>>>     response.
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     > Sure - an *implementation* of ActiveCluster API could
> >     do exactly
> >     >>>>     that.
> >     >>>>     >
> >     >>>>     ???
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     well, maybe I'm thinking of the wrong piece of
> activecluster
> >     >>>> then ?
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     any piece of code could broadcast a packet... which piece
> of
> >     >>>>     activecluster's API are you suggesting here ?
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     we really are talking about just a remoting proxy which
> >     needs to
> >     >>>>     find,
> >     >>>>     but not 'join' a cluster.
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     can you be more specific ?
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     Jules
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     > James
> >     >>>>     > -------
> >     >>>>     > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     --     "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You
> >     dangle a
> >     >>>> piece of
> >     >>>>     string into a super-saturated solution and a whole
> >     >>>> operating-system
> >     >>>>     crystallises out around it."
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>     /**********************************
> >     >>>>     * Jules Gosnell
> >     >>>>     * Partner
> >     >>>>     * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> >     >>>>     *
> >     >>>>     *     www.coredevelopers.net
> >     <http://www.coredevelopers.net> <http://www.coredevelopers.net>
> >     >>>>     *
> >     >>>>     * Open Source Training & Support.
> >     >>>>     **********************************/
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
> >     string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
> >     crystallises out around it."
> >
> >     /**********************************
> >     * Jules Gosnell
> >     * Partner
> >     * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> >     *
> >     *    www.coredevelopers.net <http://www.coredevelopers.net>
> >     *
> >     * Open Source Training & Support.
> >     **********************************/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Thomas
> > r.n.thomas@gmail.com <mailto:r.n.thomas@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
> string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
> crystallises out around it."
>
> /**********************************
> * Jules Gosnell
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> *
> *    www.coredevelopers.net
> *
> * Open Source Training & Support.
> **********************************/
>
>


--
Ryan Thomas
r.n.thomas@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message