tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Rink <>
Subject Re: clustering and jvmRoute
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:01:38 GMT


at first, thanks for your hints and getting my view on the world set
straight again. ;)

[Rainer Jung <> @ Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:32:59

> But: with stickyness (different jvmRoutes and a session sticky load 
> balancer) you only rely on the correctness of the replication when a 
> node actually fails. Since replication takes a little time and is
> very difficult to implement, that's the better strategy.

This seems reasonable. However, in terms of load balancing, I wonder
whether there are any benchmark / comparisons on that:

- Using stickiness, I ensure each request of a session to run on the
host the session initially was started upon. This way, the "session" is
the most fine-grained way I can provide load balancing, but I possibly
don't have to spend that much (development, runtime) resources in order
to ensure session replication is always correct.

- Not using stickiness, and judging from my environment, I see that I
can do load balancing on a per-request base, which seems to be a way
more fine-grained approach especially in certain "imaginary worst-case"
situations (given that the duration of sessions can drastically vary).
But, however, this way indeed I do have to take at least runtime
resources for session replication into consideration. 

Is there a meaningful approach to comparing these setups in terms of
worst-case / average-case performance, or is it simply plain
"trial-and-error" (and possibly some lambda-probe watching)?

Thanks and bye,

Kristian Rink * *
jab: * icq: 48874445 * fon: ++49 176 2447 2771
"One dreaming alone, it will be only a dream; many dreaming together
is the beginning of a new reality." (Hundertwasser)

To start a new topic, e-mail:
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message