[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Fri Apr 4 08:16:34 UTC 2008

On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:40 PM, Alexander Gnauck wrote:
> Carlo v. Loesch schrieb:
>> Yes, that's why I started thinking about something better in 1990.
>> I understood there was no way for IRC to be 'fixed' because its  
>> design
>> is fundamentally flawed. XMPP is only syntactically flawed, which is
>> a much better starting point. And you can argue that's just my  
>> opinion.
>> That's ok. Still IRC does multicast, and XMPP is still missing that,
>> and Pedro is the kind of person who can see the impact of that  
>> each day.
> I also see this impact. With the situation we have *today* I agree  
> with Dave that we don't save much traffic and stanzas with  
> repeaters. There is nearly no PubSub usage at all today, and in the  
> most Muc rooms we have only 5-30 participants. If I look at the  
> participants of jdev today than the most users have local  
> jabber.org Jids, and max. 2 or 3 participants are on the same  
> federated server. People join and leave, so there will be a tie  
> between the stanzas we save in the repeater and the overhead to  
> maintain the distribution list in the repeater.

A quick data-point: the largest pubsub node *right now*, has a bit  
over 73000 (73056 to be exact) subscribers, the top 3 are all above  
72k. And this service is only for local users of the server.

[OT] And yes, even now, with only local users, we see a bit spike in  
ejabberd when we have a new notification. This is a old version of  
ejabberd and we are using a component connection, I'm sure that if we  
move this to angie in 2.x we will improve a bit.

Best regards,
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: melo at simplicidade.org

More information about the Standards mailing list