[Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role

Colin Madere colin at vedalabs.com
Thu Aug 9 12:03:22 CDT 2001


Well, Dustin Puryear (a coworker of mine) is working on that testing suite
and he has had dropped messages.  However, he can't be sure if it's jabberd
that's dropping messages or if it's the OS (linux).  He hasn't been able to
determine that as far as I know (but I don't follow the jadmin list and my
jdev box is piled up).

Colin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Metral [mailto:Max.Metral at peoplepchq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 11:53 AM
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> 
> That could be a great answer.  Somebody is reporting dropped 
> messages, from
> this message it would seem that we WOULD spend time fixing 
> that if we can
> right?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Muldowney [mailto:temas at box5.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:48 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber Klatch: Discuss .org server role
> 
> 
> Well to be fair to myself and the work I've done you can 
> press the open
> source
> server pretty high if you use dpsm or jpolld from cvs.  Then there is
> sheath's
> farming work, which I'm sure allows it to go beyond that.  So 
> the groundwork
> for high user counts is there (scaling is another issue).  
> 
> http://www.box5.net/~temas/10k.jpg
> 
> There is an image of the open source server running with 10k users
> connected,
> granted the mem usage is pretty high, but this was back in 
> the 1.2 range,
> and
> before release optimizations.  Haven't run recent tests, but 
> Dustin has been
> (granted he's had probs, but it's not an easy task to even 
> get some boxes 
> themselves to accept 10k connections).
> 
> So the server itself can last for a little while longer.  While it is
> maintained
> primary development is focussing more on the Jabelin 
> (http://www.jabber.org)
> setup.  Don't jump ship and think that this is competition in any way,
> rather
> it is a development team (with some fresh ideas) for the next 
> gen jabber.org
> system.  Our immediate design goals are to be scalable (although not 
> neccessarily having high user counts immediately), seperate 
> out functional 
> pieces, and rethink as much as possible.  Because development focus is
> shifting
> many people are seeing a stall, but it's not there.  Granted 
> there are only
> a 
> few people working on jabelin, but jabberd was mostly written 
> by jer and a
> few
> touches here and there by other people.  Because it's always 
> been a small
> group
> working on the server jabelin wants to work in teams on 
> different aspects of
> 
> the system (XDB, config manager, SCM, CCM, HUB, etc) and 
> utilize the entire
> group as a design and philosophy base.
> 
> To answer the primary/original question, jabberd will 
> probably not scale
> much 
> more than it already can (10k roughly?), but the jabelin 
> system should be
> able
> to scale as much as you are willing to throw hardware at it 
> (farming, and
> all).
> 
> Thoughts, questions, ideas?
> 
> --temas
> 
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:12:12AM -0700, Max Metral wrote:
> > 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20010809/96df2108/attachment.html


More information about the Members mailing list