[Standards-JIG] Re: MUC traffic issues

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Sun Feb 19 19:40:08 UTC 2006


Ulrich Staudinger wrote:
> Anyway,
> when we have some sort of a integrated pubsub into the servers, and an 
> on this based MUC protocol, we would have something like this:
> ------------------------------------
> bridging MUC COMPONENT
> 
>   /      |      \
> 
>  S1     S2      S3
> ----------------------------
> 
> with S1, S2 and S3 acting as replicators of the messages coming from muc.
> 
> This would instantaneously half the amount of messages per minute on S1 
> and would also DRAMATICALLY take away load from the bridging MUC 
> component, which does in current implementations need to replicate the 
> messages itself. Of course this gained cpu time leaves power for 
> additional MUC management stuff, like filtering, checking permissions, etc.
Have you considered writing a MUC implementation which is capable of doing
S2S? Having a server act as a transparent proxy is highly undesirable
in high-load scenarios.

Philipp



More information about the Standards mailing list