[Standards] s2s and gracelessly broken streams

Tomasz Sterna tomek at xiaoka.com
Mon Apr 2 16:12:21 CDT 2007


Dnia 02-04-2007, pon o godzinie 13:04 -0700, JD Conley napisał(a):
> I think this is best answered in the form of a question: How well do you
> think SMTP would scale if it held open connections for every domain that
> is in your address book?

I don't know. I would guess the same.


> There is a finite number of connections you can use per IP address. In a
> 32 bit process space sometimes this TCP/IP imposed limit isn't even
> achievable. In Windows, at least, you have to have kernel reserved
> memory available for every socket connection (I would guess it's the
> same in the *nix world). Holding a connection open is resource
> intensive. Why not have that physical memory available for other, more
> important things, than managing a stale connection. As the popularity of
> XMPP increases the number of openly federated services will also
> increase. If we did not tear down stale s2s connections, I could see
> even small organizations (i.e. low thousands of simultaneous users -
> like jabber.org) needing more than one IP address and more advanced
> software configurations for their publicly federated XMPP system.

OK.
But following this reasoning you should tear down client connections
also. There are the order of magnitude more of these than server
connections. How come you could keep up many more c2s connections up and
be happy with that, and cannot keep less s2s connections up? These are
the same <stream:stream/>s. Why c2s are OK, and s2s not-OK?


-- 
Tomasz Sterna
Xiaoka Grp.  http://www.xiaoka.com/



More information about the Standards mailing list