tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthew Dornquast" <matt...@cata.com>
Subject Re: Distributed Session Server
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:16:44 GMT
re>"I don't agree with your assumption"

Doh, you of course are right.. I was thinking (wrongly) that we had the
serialization overhead regardless!  With sticky, you don't, doh!

So you wrote one, is it gpl?  Is it hidden in tomcat some place?  Or do we
re-invent the wheel? :)

-Matthew

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Cook" <jimcook@iname.com>
To: <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Distributed Session Server


> I have written a session server implementation as you describe. There are
> significant advantages to such an implementation (as well as
disadvantages).
>
> I thought I should clarify one misconception that you had.
>
> From: Matthew Dornquast <matthew@cata.com>
> > Obviously there is a cost when moving session storage "out of process"
> from
> > the tomcat vm perspective.  But I think if done correctly, it will come
> > close to mirroring the performance impact of sticky sessions, thus it'd
be
> a
> > wash.
>
> I don't agree with your assumption. One area that was very difficult to
> improve upon was performance. Even with dedicated, always open sockets,
> serialization of state information across processes requires new overhead.
> This overhead is much greater than the time spent performing sticky
session
> logic.
>
> In all fairness, if distributed sessions could be done as quickly as
sticky
> sessions, everyone would be doing it. Sticky sessions do not provide
> fail-over and distributed sessions do.
>
> jim
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>


Mime
View raw message