Mailing-List: contact openmeetings-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of solomax666@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACeMiA_vF-oq0Lwbj-j0iiPCUOPZ2R0-T0vYa_cGECJy73O_ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACeMiA8WphX2i-oxrZZdMHYDsAw8GOkVQmPajxwipbkpxOKZFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJmbs8jCN8BGDa6j4HZsu_5fOP=3fPO_w4S4T6JNNKnjnoWWXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACeMiA_vF-oq0Lwbj-j0iiPCUOPZ2R0-T0vYa_cGECJy73O_ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:26:18 +0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAJmbs8iNH9M0TRv2M50srUE9J-i1hhhCnWVFc70oY=1i4HccGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updated Cluster Architecture
From: Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com>
To: seba.wagner@gmail.com
Cc: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118319810251804d349a6a0

--089e0118319810251804d349a6a0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I believe Wicket supports clustering. Maybe we can use Wicket session?

I'll try to review design ASAP (I'm a little bit sick right now, might take
some time)
On Jan 15, 2013 8:21 AM, "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <seba.wagner@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Maxims,
>
> please review again, I changed it even more.
>
> This SOAP/REST sync between nodes is really not good. It will be much too
> slow.
> A lightweight session object in the database as you proposed initially is
> better.
> That way every node in the cluster has a lightweight (but clustered)
> session store available and can redirect the user to the correct node (and
> we have no cluster specific code in our app).
>
> Also that way we can use a DNS load balancing as like any other web
> application and our HTTP traffic is clustered. Not only RTMP.
> I think this approach more meets the real world.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> 2013/1/15 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com>
>
>> Hooray :) less components is better :)
>>  On Jan 15, 2013 7:39 AM, "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <seba.wagner@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have updated the graph for the cluster architecture:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENMEETINGS/Cluster+Master-Slave+overview
>>>
>>> The biggest change is that master and slave have the same database (or
>>> database-cluster). That makes it a lot easier.
>>> The master will still need to coordinate the load, so he needs to ping
>>> all slaves to collect the load and redirect to the slave that has the least
>>> traffic (or that actually already hosts the requested room)
>>> However the slaves can handle both HTTP and RTMP traffic. There is no
>>> need to separate that anymore as the slave would use the same database as
>>> the master.
>>>
>>> For syncing the recordings and other files to the master HDD there are
>>> multiple solutions. One would be like Maxim proposed to do a Samba mount.
>>> The other is for example to use some RSync scripts. This can be decided
>>> by the end user on its own.
>>>
>>> I think this is more suitable then the previous approach and uses the
>>> standard mechanisms for clustering.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think about that.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sebastian Wagner
>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>

--089e0118319810251804d349a6a0--