Mailing-List: contact user-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
In-Reply-To: 
 <OFF36D0B2B.EEBFCD01-ON882570A5.0080FE0B-882570A5.00823CF8@us.ibm.com>
References: 
 <OFF36D0B2B.EEBFCD01-ON882570A5.0080FE0B-882570A5.00823CF8@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <748C1239-DDF3-4525-BCA6-0C7AF9FB041E@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: Load Balancing in Geronimo
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:34:41 -0700
To: user@geronimo.apache.org

On Oct 25, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Michael Malgeri wrote:

>
> I'm working with a University that wants to implement an  
> application on Geronimo that supports 10,000 concurrent users.
>
> There are a number of use cases but here's one that captures the  
> primary issue
>
> Will this scenario work in the absence of clustering:
>
> 1. Load balancer in front of many linux servers each running Geronimo
> 2. Each instance or Geronimo connected to the same database server
> 3. Application only composed of JSPs, Servlets and Javabeans (no EJBs)
> 4. Users will be accessing shared data such as registering for a class
>
> In this case, if the following is true:
>
> 1. Load balancer handles session stickiness
> 2. Database server handles transactional access to shared data
> 3. Users can live without session failover
>
> Will this work?
> What are the unforeseen problems?
> What are the unforeseen restrictions?

It should work.  If they are only using the one database connection,  
I'd suggest that they use a one-phase (normal non-two-phase) JDBC  
connection.  JDBC drivers tend to be more reliable in one-phase mode.

-dain