[Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role

Colin Madere colin at vedalabs.com
Thu Aug 9 12:00:01 CDT 2001


I seem to remember the problem of presence data being stored in the jabberd
"cache".  This meaning that unless you duplicated presence info manually to
all the machines, a person who was "load balanced" to one machine would not
see the presence of someone who is on another box, XDB stored in a single
location or not.

Did you do that manual "cache copying" (which seems like a terrible waste of
memory) or did you do some address translation which mapped users internally
to @servera.domain.com or @serverb.domain.com when on the outside they all
look like @domain.com ?

Colin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Braman - Audiencebank [mailto:Rich at audiencebank.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:31 AM
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Braman - Audiencebank
> To: 'Max Metral '
> Sent: 8/9/01 12:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> Its not that hard to get Jabber.org's server to be scalable.  Once you
> have XDB tied running on some sort of SQL Server you can farm the
> jabberd boxes behind a persistant connection load balancer, 
> because they are
> all tied to the same data source, no?
> Thats what we have done for desktopdollars and it seems to work fine.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Metral
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Sent: 8/9/01 12:33 PM
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> THAT I agree with.  There can be under the covers mapping, in fact
> that's
> one of the key ways we scale I'd imagine.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Bauer [mailto:bauer at jabber.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:26 PM
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this just the DNS problem all over again?  Why can't 
> there be some
> kind of identity component, perhaps a combination of enhanced versions
> of
> JUD and S2S, map max at peoplepc.com to max at colorado.peoplepc.com?
> 
> I presume the answer to the question is no, things don't work 
> that way,
> so
> I'm looking forward to some education.
> 
> :)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Metral [mailto:Max.Metral at peoplepchq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:12 AM
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> 
> No, not all do.  AOL, MSN for example (not that they matter in this
> case).
> PeoplePC, large but not at that scale, doesn't either.  
> Nobody wants to
> have
> max at colorado.peoplepc.com...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: johnston at megaepic.com [mailto:johnston at megaepic.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> 
> Well, large ISPs usually break things down into cities and 
> stuff, no? I
> mean, @home sure does. Could we design a gateway server that keeps
> records
> of what user is on what server and forwards appropriatly?
> 
> Mat.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 07:26:20AM -0700, Max Metral wrote:
> > Your example works for internal use maybe, but what about 
> an ISP with
> a
> > couple hundred thousand users, or EBay or any of those sorts?  Right
> now
> > .org is not an option for that.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: johnston at megaepic.com [mailto:johnston at megaepic.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 1:09 AM
> > To: members at jabber.org
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> > 
> > 
> > Well, large organizations tend to be just that, organizations...
> generally
> > there have already been divisions made up between departments and
> offices,
> > etc. In this respect, the jabber system scales pretty well (even
> though
> one
> > particular server may not) since you can have 
> user at dept.company.com or
> > something along those lines. It would of course be good to 
> improve the
> > server whenever possible, but a huge number of users do not 
> need to be
> > supported as an inital design goal; rather, a more 
> appropriate design
> goal
> > would be to minimize the effort required to improve upward 
> scalability
> > should it be required. What kinds of things would stop the jabber
> server
> > from scaling to large user counts? If these things are 
> identified, why
> can
> > they not be fixed? Are there large compromises between management
> effort
> and
> > scalability?
> > 
> > Mat.
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20010809/07bc746f/attachment.html


More information about the Members mailing list