[JDEV] im unified

[Thomas Muldowney]

That felt very stabbish to me, but I'll survive.  I've done my homework, and 
have discussed this with jer many times throughout the development of the
server.  We made design decisions based on the needs that we had at the time,
and the best solutions.  At that time, and in many ways still so, it was TCP.

Not to rehash those arguments, I'll state one thing.  We pride ourselves more
on our protocol, and idealogy, part of that is the ability for jabber to run
over different mechanisms.  So UDP could be implemented into the server, and
everything could be made to run over that.  This would then give clients the
choice to use it.  Patches are always accepted =)

In short to quote pieces of a conversation with jer (about getting togther a 
technical FAQ so we don't answer these same questions over and over):

<jer> why xml?  why c?  why anything?  because those were the initial goals... why debate HISTORY, instead creating options for the FUTURE is far more productive
<jer> a goals->implementation->feedback->goals CYCLE is FAR more productive than just getting it right in one pass


--temas

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 06:57:42PM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> At 01:40  30/8/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >This disbelief in TCP/IP just doesn't make sense.  I'm very aware of the
> >scaling issues surrounding TCP, but moving to UDP is almost a fundamental
> flaw
> >for an IM system.  IM needs the ability to gurantee delivery, and keep it
> real
> >time.  UDP can't intrinsically give this, and therefore, in my opinion, is
> >flawed.  Wehn you start writing this ability on to UDP your just creating a 
> >slower system, and then start to mess with that real time nature. 
> 
> Im not sure how familiar you are with differences between TCP/UDP but I
> would suggest doing some background reading on the subject. You made some
> gross over simplifications and had some *interesting* interpretations on
> the state of things. I would suggest a little reading before so you can
> understand the real differences before you say things such as "moving to
> UDP is almost a fundamental flaw for an IM system". 
> 
> >The other
> >major item of interest is that we're not even limited by the socket count, in
> >general your going to find RAM and CPU issues before you find conn limits.
> 
> yep and TCP contributes to this - in general there is a fair bit of
> overhead in maintanence. From memory the buffers are about 1k and can be
> larger depending on OS/kernel mods. Think about - this buffer is much less
> efficient representation than the Jabber router can represent data in - is
> mostly empty when not completely empty.
> 
> I am not sure why CPU is a limiting factor thou - could you elaborate ?
> 
> >I'd be happy to discuss scaling further, as I'm working on scaling the server
> >to 10million users.
> 
> Good luck but I seriously doubt you will able to do this without massive
> distribution or a large machine using TCP. Is there any equivelent systems
> that even come close to that number using TCP ? I don't know any but .....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
> | to test a man's character, give him power."          |
> |       -Abraham Lincoln                               |
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20000901/9c4a60be/attachment-0002.pgp>