Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-openmeetings-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-openmeetings-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22EE0DAF1 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 78855 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2012 04:41:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-openmeetings-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 77426 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2012 04:41:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact openmeetings-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75354 invoked by uid 99); 27 Nov 2012 04:41:43 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:41:42 +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 (nike.apache.org: domain of seba.wagner@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.47] (HELO mail-la0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:36:12 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id u2so8671959lag.6 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:35:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Gi98XgEyv9wRekQgQ6IZ+Er47FhDZdcWhXj19tABEAU=; b=Iesre6QNb1JypE9pi763JtyL2e4+ibt5lpUQnb9vbFSiHEUbCgoUy3If82ikbojZWL +p3nfBmk83LIy22KEIc2s3L6TV+Jc6XENeFijqpXvOj9C0BKUtiTuaYacQMyOft5mSg7 gN2Vt3FcxsDTtF7yZDU0Pg9hDS4/UyrylaKYvPGfD9l9ERmTS6nC/ZfIt7ti3qCkxmJ9 zaJSRNq5mnuIqIopaQ0FZcmN6CJbQNSoAklFQde4t8Mnu6mvWURfsVo2fFATDTymo57H JFTL2ItFKJlXu58uH87orj0hEsDnmW3RmW68GkqQbk2YgZOeanXwIqFaeEuHPD10UNUV nsug== Received: by 10.152.108.37 with SMTP id hh5mr13339758lab.52.1353990951753; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:35:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.37.196 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:35:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "seba.wagner@gmail.com" Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:35:31 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing To: "openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee10ab5581404cf72952d X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec54ee10ab5581404cf72952d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 same for "Users" entity. There is no need for a "Server" entity in the User object. Sebastian 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > 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 --bcaec54ee10ab5581404cf72952d--