openmeetings-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <seba.wag...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:35:31 GMT
same for "Users" entity.
There is no need for a "Server" entity in the User object.

Sebastian




2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com>

> The only reason for having "server" for the user/room was balancing.
> no need for them if it will be done automatically
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok then lets go for it.
> > It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is gone.
> > We would not need it anymore.
> >
> > Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference
> room?
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I like this approach :)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> > > > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
> > > "free" a
> > > > conference room is.
> > > > So the idea would be:
> > > > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users
> currently
> > > > online, we calc the server load by:
> > > > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> > > > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference
> room
> > > and
> > > > build the sum for every server.
> > > >
> > > > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> > > > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > > > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > > > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > > > > 1 room has capacity of 150
> > > > >
> > > > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150
on
> > > > > separate server.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the
> slaves
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has
a
> light
> > > > > version
> > > > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master
> to
> > > > find
> > > > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out
> users
> > > > from
> > > > > a
> > > > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room
> is
> > > > > assigned
> > > > > > to which server?
> > > > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in
the
> > > > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any
> > server
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user
> > enters
> > > > the
> > > > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free
> > capacities
> > > > and
> > > > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody
> joining
> > > the
> > > > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and
it is
> > > > likely
> > > > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a
> solution
> > > then
> > > > > by
> > > > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often
> nobody
> > > uses
> > > > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server
> that
> > is
> > > > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>



-- 
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message