[Standards] Council on Stanza Repeaters without Multicast

Pedro Melo melo at simplicidade.org
Fri Apr 4 10:28:50 UTC 2008


On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Fri Apr  4 09:16:34 2008, Pedro Melo wrote:
>> 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.
> To state the obvious (which I'm sure you know), nothing's going to  
> help this case...

Yes, that was not the point of this, it was only to show that this  
problem is important now, and not "when we have 100k subscribers in  
the future". The future is here now.

I'll reply to your other message later :).

>> [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.
> ... unless you ran a repeater over the component link, of course,  
> which might work. Or might not - but a component protocol might  
> need this sort of thing.

It was really [OT] and an implementation detail. There are other  
alternatives that we prefer.

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

More information about the Standards mailing list