You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openmeetings.apache.org by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com> on 2012/11/27 04:30:39 UTC
[DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to the
master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light version
of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to find
out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users from a
conference room that is hosted on any slave.
The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is assigned
to which server?
Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server in the
cluster.
You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters the
conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities and
starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining the
conference will be redirected to the same server.
I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is likely
that you will use your given resources better with such a solution then by
manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody uses
those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
blocked but has nothing todo).
What do you think?
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Hallo Marcus,
please review this graphic:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENMEETINGS/Cluster+Master-Slave+overview
What we want to cluster is the RTMP traffic. That has nothing todo with
Tomcat 7, except that Red5 runs in the Tomcat 7 servlet container.
And the session that we are talking about are not Tomcat sessions, they are
RTMP-Connections. Each RTMP connection is a session. Those RTMP connections
are handled via Red5 and not via Tomcat. We have on top another session
object that has a 1:1 relation to a RTMP Connection.
Your solution might fit for the clustering of the Wicket part that is
indeed implemented using standard Tomcat technologies. However, we are
currently concentrating on RTMP traffic, cause in our current setup, this
is the bottleneck.
Sebastian
2012/11/27 Marcus Wellnitz <we...@datenwerk-it.de>
> Hello,
>
> IMHO it would be fine to connect all cluster nodes via multicast (as
> tomcat does it for session replication mechanism). Multicast was designed
> for streaming data and in this case we HAVE streaming data.
>
> As I understand the OM architecture the first conference-user opens the
> room-session. At this OM-Instance the steam-management has to be done. All
> other client-streames can open an multicast-stream for their data and can
> connect to the mixed(master) mc-stream of the room.
>
> This setup is flexible and if you create a (tomcat) ajp adapter an apache
> reverse proxy can get the system status (load, #sessions, etc.) directly
> via the ajp-connector. With this information apache can do all
> loadbalancing thinks.
>
> This solution will ensure that the complexity of the LB system will stay
> moderate and if the implementition is smart enough it doesn't matter if a
> cluster node crashes. Apache will migrate the session to an other node with
> maybe one or two seconds of pause.
>
> Please look at the simpleTcpCluster at the tomcat doku:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/**tomcat-7.0-doc/config/cluster.**html<http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/cluster.html>
> http://tomcat.apache.org/**tomcat-7.0-doc/config/ajp.html<http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/ajp.html>
>
> Greetings from Germany
>
> Marcus
>
> Am 27.11.2012 04:37, schrieb Maxim Solodovnik:
>
> I believe room capacity check should also be added.
>> I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
>> 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
>> 1 room has capacity of 150
>>
>> in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
>> separate server.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
>>>
>>> Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to the
>>> master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light
>>> version
>>> of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to find
>>> out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users from
>>> a
>>> conference room that is hosted on any slave.
>>>
>>> The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is
>>> assigned
>>> to which server?
>>> Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
>>> organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server in
>>> the
>>> cluster.
>>> You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters the
>>> conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities and
>>> starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining the
>>> conference will be redirected to the same server.
>>>
>>> I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is likely
>>> that you will use your given resources better with such a solution then
>>> by
>>> manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody uses
>>> those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
>>> blocked but has nothing todo).
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>> --
>>> Sebastian Wagner
>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_**lock <https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock>
>>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.**com <http://www.wagner-sebastian.com>
>>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Marcus Wellnitz
> Datenwerk GmbH
> Vogelsbergstr. 34
> 60316 Frankfurt am Main
>
> Telefon +49 (0) 69/9434086-0
> Fax +49 (0) 69/9434086-9
> E-Mail hosting@datenwerk-it.de
> Web www.datenwerk-it.de
>
> Sitz: Frankfurt am Main, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55221
> Geschäftsführer: Michael Beck
>
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by Marcus Wellnitz <we...@datenwerk-it.de>.
Hello,
IMHO it would be fine to connect all cluster nodes via multicast (as
tomcat does it for session replication mechanism). Multicast was
designed for streaming data and in this case we HAVE streaming data.
As I understand the OM architecture the first conference-user opens the
room-session. At this OM-Instance the steam-management has to be done.
All other client-streames can open an multicast-stream for their data
and can connect to the mixed(master) mc-stream of the room.
This setup is flexible and if you create a (tomcat) ajp adapter an
apache reverse proxy can get the system status (load, #sessions, etc.)
directly via the ajp-connector. With this information apache can do all
loadbalancing thinks.
This solution will ensure that the complexity of the LB system will stay
moderate and if the implementition is smart enough it doesn't matter if
a cluster node crashes. Apache will migrate the session to an other node
with maybe one or two seconds of pause.
Please look at the simpleTcpCluster at the tomcat doku:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/cluster.html
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/config/ajp.html
Greetings from Germany
Marcus
Am 27.11.2012 04:37, schrieb Maxim Solodovnik:
> I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> 1 room has capacity of 150
>
> in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
> separate server.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
>>
>> Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to the
>> master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light version
>> of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to find
>> out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users from a
>> conference room that is hosted on any slave.
>>
>> The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is assigned
>> to which server?
>> Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
>> organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server in the
>> cluster.
>> You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters the
>> conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities and
>> starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining the
>> conference will be redirected to the same server.
>>
>> I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is likely
>> that you will use your given resources better with such a solution then by
>> manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody uses
>> those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
>> blocked but has nothing todo).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Sebastian
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>
>
>
--
Marcus Wellnitz
Datenwerk GmbH
Vogelsbergstr. 34
60316 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon +49 (0) 69/9434086-0
Fax +49 (0) 69/9434086-9
E-Mail hosting@datenwerk-it.de
Web www.datenwerk-it.de
Sitz: Frankfurt am Main, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55221
Geschäftsführer: Michael Beck
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Practically that would simply mean:
When the user enters the room he will ask the master:
Give me the Server entity for that session (aka "getServerForSession")
There will be no attribute needed in the Rooms Entity for that, and there
is no need to spread the server entity across all Users Entities.
On a later stage the method "getServerForSession" could be modified so that
if the user is of a specific organization, the default
(even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers) implementation is
overwritten with the server from the org.
If you don't have any "servers" configured, so you run actually no cluster,
it will simply return the current host (or null, what would mean not to
change the server's adress at all).
Sebastian
2012/11/27 seba.wagner@gmail.com <se...@gmail.com>
> @Irina That is true. However we would not only need the regional
> information about the first user but also about what kind of participants
> will join in that room. For example: If the first user is an Australian, it
> does not mean that all participants of the conference will be from
> Australia.
>
> I think that for a first implementation an even/uniform/constant load
> across all slaves/servers should be the goal.
> Cause in that way it will minimize the number of servers needed to handle
> a large user base and in that sense minimize costs to handle the cluster.
>
> Having them served on a server that is regionally next to them would be
> another point. I guess on a second iteration we could think about a manual
> possibility to bind an organization to several servers. But not on room or
> Users level.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
> 2012/11/27 Irina Arkhipets <ia...@unipro.ru>
>
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> From my opinion, there is one more reason to have some "pre-defined"
>> server
>> for the user. If this is a distributed cluster with servers in the
>> different
>> locations, maybe it's more correct to make a conference on the server
>> which
>> is nearest to the given user...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Irina.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: seba.wagner@gmail.com [mailto:seba.wagner@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:36 AM
>> To: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
>>
>> same for "Users" entity.
>> There is no need for a "Server" entity in the User object.
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > The only reason for having "server" for the user/room was balancing.
>> > no need for them if it will be done automatically
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ok then lets go for it.
>> > > It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is
>> gone.
>> > > We would not need it anymore.
>> > >
>> > > Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference
>> > room?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > >
>> > > > I like this approach :)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
>> > > > > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
>> > > > "free" a
>> > > > > conference room is.
>> > > > > So the idea would be:
>> > > > > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users
>> > currently
>> > > > > online, we calc the server load by:
>> > > > > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
>> > > > > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference
>> > room
>> > > > and
>> > > > > build the sum for every server.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
>> > > > > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sebastian
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
>> > > > > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
>> > > > > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
>> > > > > > 1 room has capacity of 150
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150
>> on
>> > > > > > separate server.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
>> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the
>> > slaves
>> > > to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a
>> > light
>> > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the
>> master
>> > to
>> > > > > find
>> > > > > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out
>> > users
>> > > > > from
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference
>> room
>> > is
>> > > > > > assigned
>> > > > > > > to which server?
>> > > > > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in
>> the
>> > > > > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any
>> > > server
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > cluster.
>> > > > > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user
>> > > enters
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free
>> > > capacities
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody
>> > joining
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it
>> is
>> > > > > likely
>> > > > > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a
>> > solution
>> > > > then
>> > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often
>> > nobody
>> > > > uses
>> > > > > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server
>> > that
>> > > is
>> > > > > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What do you think?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Sebastian
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > WBR
>> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > WBR
>> > > > Maxim aka solomax
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sebastian Wagner
>> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
>> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > WBR
>> > Maxim aka solomax
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
@Irina That is true. However we would not only need the regional
information about the first user but also about what kind of participants
will join in that room. For example: If the first user is an Australian, it
does not mean that all participants of the conference will be from
Australia.
I think that for a first implementation an even/uniform/constant load
across all slaves/servers should be the goal.
Cause in that way it will minimize the number of servers needed to handle a
large user base and in that sense minimize costs to handle the cluster.
Having them served on a server that is regionally next to them would be
another point. I guess on a second iteration we could think about a manual
possibility to bind an organization to several servers. But not on room or
Users level.
Sebastian
2012/11/27 Irina Arkhipets <ia...@unipro.ru>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> From my opinion, there is one more reason to have some "pre-defined" server
> for the user. If this is a distributed cluster with servers in the
> different
> locations, maybe it's more correct to make a conference on the server which
> is nearest to the given user...
>
> Best regards,
> Irina.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: seba.wagner@gmail.com [mailto:seba.wagner@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:36 AM
> To: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
>
> same for "Users" entity.
> There is no need for a "Server" entity in the User object.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
> 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > The only reason for having "server" for the user/room was balancing.
> > no need for them if it will be done automatically
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok then lets go for it.
> > > It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is
> gone.
> > > We would not need it anymore.
> > >
> > > Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference
> > room?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I like this approach :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> > > > > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
> > > > "free" a
> > > > > conference room is.
> > > > > So the idea would be:
> > > > > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users
> > currently
> > > > > online, we calc the server load by:
> > > > > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> > > > > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference
> > room
> > > > and
> > > > > build the sum for every server.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> > > > > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > > > > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > > > > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > > > > > 1 room has capacity of 150
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150
> on
> > > > > > separate server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the
> > slaves
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a
> > light
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the
> master
> > to
> > > > > find
> > > > > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out
> > users
> > > > > from
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room
> > is
> > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > to which server?
> > > > > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > > > > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any
> > > server
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user
> > > enters
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free
> > > capacities
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody
> > joining
> > > > the
> > > > > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it
> is
> > > > > likely
> > > > > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a
> > solution
> > > > then
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often
> > nobody
> > > > uses
> > > > > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server
> > that
> > > is
> > > > > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
RE: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by Irina Arkhipets <ia...@unipro.ru>.
Hi Sebastian,
>From my opinion, there is one more reason to have some "pre-defined" server
for the user. If this is a distributed cluster with servers in the different
locations, maybe it's more correct to make a conference on the server which
is nearest to the given user...
Best regards,
Irina.
-----Original Message-----
From: seba.wagner@gmail.com [mailto:seba.wagner@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:36 AM
To: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
same for "Users" entity.
There is no need for a "Server" entity in the User object.
Sebastian
2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> The only reason for having "server" for the user/room was balancing.
> no need for them if it will be done automatically
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok then lets go for it.
> > It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is gone.
> > We would not need it anymore.
> >
> > Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference
> room?
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I like this approach :)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> > > > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
> > > "free" a
> > > > conference room is.
> > > > So the idea would be:
> > > > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users
> currently
> > > > online, we calc the server load by:
> > > > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> > > > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference
> room
> > > and
> > > > build the sum for every server.
> > > >
> > > > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> > > > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > > > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > > > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > > > > 1 room has capacity of 150
> > > > >
> > > > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150
on
> > > > > separate server.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the
> slaves
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a
> light
> > > > > version
> > > > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master
> to
> > > > find
> > > > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out
> users
> > > > from
> > > > > a
> > > > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room
> is
> > > > > assigned
> > > > > > to which server?
> > > > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > > > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any
> > server
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user
> > enters
> > > > the
> > > > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free
> > capacities
> > > > and
> > > > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody
> joining
> > > the
> > > > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it
is
> > > > likely
> > > > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a
> solution
> > > then
> > > > > by
> > > > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often
> nobody
> > > uses
> > > > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server
> that
> > is
> > > > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
same for "Users" entity.
There is no need for a "Server" entity in the User object.
Sebastian
2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> The only reason for having "server" for the user/room was balancing.
> no need for them if it will be done automatically
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok then lets go for it.
> > It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is gone.
> > We would not need it anymore.
> >
> > Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference
> room?
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I like this approach :)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> > > > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
> > > "free" a
> > > > conference room is.
> > > > So the idea would be:
> > > > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users
> currently
> > > > online, we calc the server load by:
> > > > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> > > > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference
> room
> > > and
> > > > build the sum for every server.
> > > >
> > > > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> > > > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > > > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > > > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > > > > 1 room has capacity of 150
> > > > >
> > > > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
> > > > > separate server.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the
> slaves
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a
> light
> > > > > version
> > > > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master
> to
> > > > find
> > > > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out
> users
> > > > from
> > > > > a
> > > > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room
> is
> > > > > assigned
> > > > > > to which server?
> > > > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > > > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any
> > server
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user
> > enters
> > > > the
> > > > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free
> > capacities
> > > > and
> > > > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody
> joining
> > > the
> > > > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is
> > > > likely
> > > > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a
> solution
> > > then
> > > > > by
> > > > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often
> nobody
> > > uses
> > > > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server
> that
> > is
> > > > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
The only reason for having "server" for the user/room was balancing.
no need for them if it will be done automatically
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok then lets go for it.
> It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is gone.
> We would not need it anymore.
>
> Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference room?
>
>
> 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > I like this approach :)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> > > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
> > "free" a
> > > conference room is.
> > > So the idea would be:
> > > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users currently
> > > online, we calc the server load by:
> > > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> > > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference room
> > and
> > > build the sum for every server.
> > >
> > > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> > > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > > > 1 room has capacity of 150
> > > >
> > > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
> > > > separate server.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > > > >
> > > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves
> to
> > > the
> > > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light
> > > > version
> > > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to
> > > find
> > > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users
> > > from
> > > > a
> > > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is
> > > > assigned
> > > > > to which server?
> > > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any
> server
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > cluster.
> > > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user
> enters
> > > the
> > > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free
> capacities
> > > and
> > > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining
> > the
> > > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > > > >
> > > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is
> > > likely
> > > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a solution
> > then
> > > > by
> > > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody
> > uses
> > > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that
> is
> > > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Ok then lets go for it.
It would mean that the attribute "server" in the "Rooms" Entity is gone.
We would not need it anymore.
Or is there any need to configure a specific server for a conference room?
2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> I like this approach :)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> > The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how
> "free" a
> > conference room is.
> > So the idea would be:
> > Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users currently
> > online, we calc the server load by:
> > 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> > 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference room
> and
> > build the sum for every server.
> >
> > The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> > even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > > 1 room has capacity of 150
> > >
> > > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
> > > separate server.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > > >
> > > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to
> > the
> > > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light
> > > version
> > > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to
> > find
> > > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users
> > from
> > > a
> > > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > > >
> > > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is
> > > assigned
> > > > to which server?
> > > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server
> in
> > > the
> > > > cluster.
> > > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters
> > the
> > > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities
> > and
> > > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining
> the
> > > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > > >
> > > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is
> > likely
> > > > that you will use your given resources better with such a solution
> then
> > > by
> > > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody
> uses
> > > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
> > > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
I like this approach :)
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
> The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how "free" a
> conference room is.
> So the idea would be:
> Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users currently
> online, we calc the server load by:
> 1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
> 2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference room and
> build the sum for every server.
>
> The first implementation would then just try to organize an
> even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
> 2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>
> > I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> > I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> > 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> > 1 room has capacity of 150
> >
> > in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
> > separate server.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> > >
> > > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to
> the
> > > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light
> > version
> > > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to
> find
> > > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users
> from
> > a
> > > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> > >
> > > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is
> > assigned
> > > to which server?
> > > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server in
> > the
> > > cluster.
> > > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters
> the
> > > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities
> and
> > > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining the
> > > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> > >
> > > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is
> likely
> > > that you will use your given resources better with such a solution then
> > by
> > > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody uses
> > > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
> > > blocked but has nothing todo).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Wagner
> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Well you can include this meta information in the calculation.
The calculation will use the capacity of the room to calculate how "free" a
conference room is.
So the idea would be:
Instead of calculating the server load be the number of users currently
online, we calc the server load by:
1) Checking which rooms are currently on which servers
2) Calculate the maxUser load based on the maxUsers per conference room and
build the sum for every server.
The first implementation would then just try to organize an
even/uniform/constant load across all slaves/servers.
Sebastian
2012/11/27 Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> I believe room capacity check should also be added.
> I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
> 9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
> 1 room has capacity of 150
>
> in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
> separate server.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
> seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
> >
> > Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to the
> > master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light
> version
> > of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to find
> > out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users from
> a
> > conference room that is hosted on any slave.
> >
> > The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is
> assigned
> > to which server?
> > Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> > organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server in
> the
> > cluster.
> > You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters the
> > conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities and
> > starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining the
> > conference will be redirected to the same server.
> >
> > I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is likely
> > that you will use your given resources better with such a solution then
> by
> > manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody uses
> > those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
> > blocked but has nothing todo).
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Sebastian
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Manual vs Dynamic (Software Based) Load Balancing
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
I believe room capacity check should also be added.
I mean in our configuration we have 10 rooms and 2 servers
9 rooms has capacity of 1-10
1 room has capacity of 150
in such situation it is better to have room with capacity of 150 on
separate server.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, seba.wagner@gmail.com <
seba.wagner@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a request to discuss regarding clustering.
>
> Status: The syncing of the sessions in the cluster from the slaves to the
> master is basically ready. So the master of the cluster has a light version
> of the slave's session object, and it is possible for the master to find
> out the load across the cluster. The master can also kick out users from a
> conference room that is hosted on any slave.
>
> The question is know: How do we calculate which conference room is assigned
> to which server?
> Basically there is no need to have a configuration value in the
> organization or conference room, that assigns the room to any server in the
> cluster.
> You can simply do that dynamically: *As soon as the first user enters the
> conference room, the cluster checks which server has free capacities and
> starts the conference room on that slave.* And then anybody joining the
> conference will be redirected to the same server.
>
> I basically like this idea, as it makes it more dynamic and it is likely
> that you will use your given resources better with such a solution then by
> manually assigning slave/servers to conference rooms (often nobody uses
> those rooms and the slave/server will be just a zombie server that is
> blocked but has nothing todo).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Sebastian
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax