I agree (connectionless, UDP) Re: [JDEV] scaling a single server?

[temas]

Everyone,

I guess it's about time that jer or I interject here.  This thread is getting
huge and we'll become misleading to people looking at jabber.  Jer and I have
talked about scaling into the realm of millions of users, and for some reason
I'm finding myself disappointed by how everyone is viewing this problem.
Everyone seems to think that out of any single box we can run millions of
users.  This is just not possible, and completely unpractical.  Think of all
the XML you would be parsing.  Your CPU would decide to kill you.  So, after
jer and I talked about this, we came to the conclusion that this is really a
solution that has to be evaluated per setup that people need.  We examined
one case and have come up with a very very sweet setup for these people, it
doesn't not involve a single machine, rather a good amount of them.  We'll
see how they like it, and once it's implemented it will set a standard for
how these setups work in the future.  Think big people.  Think infrastructure
think domination.

--temas

On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 08:26:48AM -0600, Thomas Charron wrote:
> Quoting Keith Minkler <keith at digix.net>:
> > > My goal has been to support client-to-client with the server being more
> > of
> > a
> > > directory.
> > Robert, This is not the goal of jabber at all.  We use a 'smart' server
> > that
> > knows how to communicate with all sorts of different services so that the
> > 'dumb' clients only have to know how to talk to the server.  The method you
> > are proposing, having client/client communication only, would put the ball
> > in the clients court so to speak when it comes to talking to all the
> > different IM clients.. that means that your client would have to know how
> > to talk to ICQ, AIM, MSN, et all.. which is just dumb IMO.
> 
>   I'm not getting your point here at all.  Granted, I'm not for client<->client 
> myself, but there is nothing stopping a client from implementing it in the 
> protocol for a reason.  As long as it is allowed to use either or, with a 
> preference on direct client<->client, it should be fine, and even better with 
> feature negotiations.
> 
> > > I just don't see myself implementing Jabber for communities where the
> > goal
> > > his high growth.
> > *HUH*?  Jabber is scalable to the point of world domination... it uses
> > distrubuted servers.. ever hear of e-mail?
> 
>   Yes, we all have, but I think the primary concern here is one location with 
> 500,000 users.  Right now, the only solution would be to divy up the users 
> between servers, using different addresses, aka, jabber1.isp.com, 
> jabber2.isp.com.
> 
>   Now, EVENTUALLY, probrably in the realm of 1.x+, since 1.0 will be out soon, 
> servers will have the ability to run one domain accross multiple servers, aka, 
> many machines could serve up jabber.isp.com, using a DNS round robin type of 
> scheme, so don't give up hope there..
> 
>   Also, UDP capabilities I feel will eventually make their way in there, simply 
> do to popular demand..  This will also bump up the number of users capable of 
> being hosted on one server..
> 
> --- 
> Thomas Charron
> << Wanted: One decent sig >>
> << Preferably litle used  >>
> << and stored in garage.  ?>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20000207/89110198/attachment-0002.pgp>