From dev-return-94662-apmail-geronimo-dev-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Sun Apr 8 15:43:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CA639FD9 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20541 invoked by uid 500); 8 Apr 2012 15:43:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 20496 invoked by uid 500); 8 Apr 2012 15:43:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 20489 invoked by uid 99); 8 Apr 2012 15:43:57 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:43:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of xhhsld@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.50] (HELO mail-wg0-f50.google.com) (74.125.82.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:43:51 +0000 Received: by wgbds12 with SMTP id ds12so3535280wgb.31 for ; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=le1C5uQnSs42KhutW+O4esGjB7ceI7K0fyJpu637zrU=; b=W5xYcOtfCreBYAgTx6oRsEsS/h8L8u4+kq6P8xB21vq1++rxQzSMeMnOxhvoiegj6C XEWGJtkChVQVFSAnQHZM54jSCbYzpQ5ug40wpIcoM7Wj0BnaYLEd8lOOd9Jvxa06XOc5 c2wwIEieWP1kM3PDATqfpAo6vkFfpGfHeDlMAA//YoBxm8cjauGa+tK6SpibSKzl8jFE GrellfbA2hqkYR3X5DYy1UkXwtFLWrOZT0BbijyQrX6upx5EyyB3ApT6ulnkq5utILeT yZZWs3LHmqPnZcSRrX9FqYY6PSieVq643QacTQg5cqg4o5E/ASdqOP+hptp8hCLn2E5U wJLw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.91.10 with SMTP id ca10mr9892730wib.17.1333899810241; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.12.208 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F7F39C7.7010103@cait.org> References: <4F7DA321.1090009@cait.org> <4F7F01E4.4040507@cait.org> <59355147-A454-4481-B1AD-896B0789EFDE@gmail.com> <4F7F39C7.7010103@cait.org> Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 23:43:30 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Regarding GERONIMO-6317 Profiling clustering modules to save build time From: Ivan To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c093e5afc2e04bd2cc023 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d043c093e5afc2e04bd2cc023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To seek for a new alternative for clustering may require more work, for WADI clustering on web side, IIRC, it uses Valve to copy session information by multicast or unicast, considering that Tomcat plugin still supports most of those related configurations, I am thinking that may be only a few changes may require to enable the session copying, has anyone tried that ? 2012/4/7 Russell E Glaue > > > On 04/06/2012 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> >> On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote: >> >> >>> On 04/05/2012 02:49 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 5, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote: >>>> >>>> "Clustering features are not available in the current 3.0-beta branch, >>>>> so add some profiles to not build it, thus save the build time." >>>>> >>>>> Is commit 1309635 related to this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is someone able to explain why WADI Clustering and Plugin Farming are >>>>> not available in the 3.0-beta branch? Is it broken? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Russell, >>>> The WADI project seems to be largely dormant. Without anyone willing to >>>> bring the function forward, I don't think anyone has looked at trying to >>>> get it to work on a 3.0 base. >>>> >>>> Is WADI important to you? >>>> >>>> --kevan >>>> >>>> >>> I'm wanting to get Geronimo up in my employer's web farms, and finally >>> getting multiple instance support was a huge step forward for me. But now >>> removing support for clustering is a step backward. We had been planning on >>> its use. >>> >>> Some mechanism is important to anyone who wants web user sessions to >>> have persistence among multiple clustered/loadbalanced Geronimo servers. >>> And we have had (used to anyway) lots of conversations on the importance of >>> Geronimo clustering capabilities and how to do it. >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**GMOxDEV/clustering-initial-**discussion.html >>> >>> Yes.., we can use other 3rd party like Terracotta, but that does not >>> make Geronimo enterprise-ready out-of-the-box. And the terracotta plugin is >>> probably not updated for 3.0. >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**GMOxDEV/clustering-geronimo-** >>> with-open-terracotta.html >>> >>> If we remove WADI support, will we replace it with some other mechanism >>> to share web user sessions among Geronimo instances? Or will we tell users >>> to rely on tomcat's and jetty's native session replication and management? >>> This alternative will not be a clean configuration, since the changes would >>> have manually to go into tomcat and jetty server config files - not >>> deployed as plans. >>> >> >> OK. So, for session replication, most people that I know of use Tomcat >> native clustering (https://cwiki.apache.org/**GMOxDOC30/tomcat-native-** >> clustering.html). >> Does that not work for you? If we can go into specific issues, that would >> be great... >> >> Great conversation to be having. Thanks! >> >> --kevan >> > > Please correct me if I am wrong, > > Is not the WADI support providing one configuration for clustering all > deployed tomcat containers in a single Geronimo instance? > > But if we use the tomcat default clustering support, we have to configure > it on a per-container basis, even when multiple containers operate in the > same Geronimo run-time instance? -- So it I have five containers configured > in a single instance, each will have to be configured individually for > clustering. > > The prior WADI support shares the session clustering among all containers, > and the later requires each container to instantiate its own independent > clustering - which is more overhead when compared to the prior option. > > > I'm not necessarily a big supporter of WADI, and am definitely ready to > accept alternatives. I would just like there to be a comparably good and > well documented alternative - even if it is me writing the documentation, > which I am willing. > > I agree that having to support WADI integration in Geronimo source is more > work when the typical user will be fine with, and probably prefer, the > default Tomcat clustering. Especially with the WADI project not being > active. > > > Now having discussed the benefits of WADI as a better geronimo solution, > do we have a desire to provide that level of benefit with some alternate > solution that can be used in place of WADI? > > > I appreciate this discussion. I want to continue to keep Enterprise > Geronimo Usability at the top of the discussion list. > > -RG > -- Ivan --f46d043c093e5afc2e04bd2cc023 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To seek for a new alternative for clustering may require more work, for WAD= I clustering on web side, IIRC, it uses Valve to copy session information b= y multicast or unicast, considering that Tomcat plugin still supports most = of those related configurations, I am thinking that may be only a few chang= es may require to enable the session copying, has anyone tried that ?

2012/4/7 Russell E Glaue &= lt;rglaue@cait.org>


On 04/06/2012 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote:


On 04/05/2012 02:49 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

On Apr 5, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Russell E Glaue wrote:

"Clustering features are not available in the current 3.0-beta branch,= so add some profiles to not build it, thus save the build time."

Is commit 1309635 related to this?


Is someone able to explain why WADI Clustering and Plugin Farming are not a= vailable in the 3.0-beta branch? Is it broken?

Hi Russell,
The WADI project seems to be largely dormant. Without anyone willing to bri= ng the function forward, I don't think anyone has looked at trying to g= et it to work on a 3.0 base.

Is WADI important to you?

--kevan


I'm wanting to get Geronimo up in my employer's web farms, and fina= lly getting multiple instance support was a huge step forward for me. But n= ow removing support for clustering is a step backward. We had been planning= on its use.

Some mechanism is important to anyone who wants web user sessions to have p= ersistence among multiple clustered/loadbalanced Geronimo servers. And we h= ave had (used to anyway) lots of conversations on the importance of Geronim= o clustering capabilities and how to do it.
https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/clustering-i= nitial-discussion.html

Yes.., we can use other 3rd party like Terracotta, but that does not make G= eronimo enterprise-ready out-of-the-box. And the terracotta plugin is proba= bly not updated for 3.0.
https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/c= lustering-geronimo-with-open-terracotta.html

If we remove WADI support, will we replace it with some other mechanism to = share web user sessions among Geronimo instances? Or will we tell users to = rely on tomcat's and jetty's native session replication and managem= ent? This alternative will not be a clean configuration, since the changes = would have manually to go into tomcat and jetty server config files - not d= eployed as plans.

OK. So, for session replication, most people that I know of use Tomcat nati= ve clustering (https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC3= 0/tomcat-native-clustering.html). Does that not work for you? If= we can go into specific issues, that would be great...

Great conversation to be having. Thanks!

--kevan

Please correct me if I am wrong,

Is not the WADI support providing one configuration for clustering all depl= oyed tomcat containers in a single Geronimo instance?

But if we use the tomcat default clustering support, we have to configure i= t on a per-container basis, even when multiple containers operate in the sa= me Geronimo run-time instance? -- So it I have five containers configured i= n a single instance, each will have to be configured individually for clust= ering.

The prior WADI support shares the session clustering among all containers, = and the later requires each container to instantiate its own independent cl= ustering - which is more overhead when compared to the prior option.


I'm not necessarily a big supporter of WADI, and am definitely ready to= accept alternatives. I would just like there to be a comparably good and w= ell documented alternative - even if it is me writing the documentation, wh= ich I am willing.

I agree that having to support WADI integration in Geronimo source is more = work when the typical user will be fine with, and probably prefer, the defa= ult Tomcat clustering. Especially with the WADI project not being active.

Now having discussed the benefits of WADI as a better geronimo solution, do= we have a desire to provide that level of benefit with some alternate solu= tion that can be used in place of WADI?


I appreciate this discussion. I want to continue to keep Enterprise Geronim= o Usability at the top of the discussion list.

-RG



-- Ivan
--f46d043c093e5afc2e04bd2cc023--