[Opensim-dev] [Opensim-users] grid operation

[Impalah]

It's quite simple:
- 6 servers in grid, 1 in standalone (memory, cpu...)
- Interserver tcp-ip/udp communications in grid, internal function calls in
standalone (comms are slooooow)

As anyone told me (I think Justin was), the UGAIM servers are only "example"
implementations made in C#. So, like openUGAI did with perl-cgi, I am doing
the same with php+cakephp. I think that the overload of one apache server
has to be much more lower than 5 UGAIM independent servers.

Greetings.




2008/12/19 Michael Wright <michaelwri22 at yahoo.co.uk>

> I really don't think standalone mode is a relic of the past, and don't
> think its finest hour is anywhere near yet. I think adaptions of standalone
> mode, with a Hypergrid type systems, are a big part of the future.
>
> There are so many applications that a variant of standalone would fit much
> better than full grid mode.
>
> *But even if its not, it is certainly useful for testing and for new
> users. And performs much better than a grid for a few regions. Someone was
> asking about this in #dev the other day...Why when they switch from
> standalone to grid mode with the same number of regions, was the performance
> much worse.
> *
> There is also the issue that Justin mentioned last time we talked about
> this (last week in the other thread), of a user having to monitor the other
> processes and restarting them if one of them crashed.
>
> I really think we should be moving away from the grid system we have now. I
> think we could improve the Hypergrid concept of the grid/map and have a more
> peer to peer grid service.
>
> But again I do think there is a lot that we can do to simplify the code
> paths, we have a lot of duplication that isn't needed and don't share code
> and interfaces between the UGAIM and the standalone services as much as we
> should.
>
> So my vote is still -1 to removing standalone mode.
>
> *Melanie <melanie at t-data.com>* wrote:
>
> I believe the simplification of internal code paths is worth the
> multiple processes. Of course, you may have a different opinion.
>
> I further believe that the overhead is negligible and caught up by
> the time saved within the application, for not having to call across
> delegates, interfaces and X layers of indirection.
>
> An "implicit grid mode" can certainly be made VS friendly - just a
> matter of designing it that way.
>
> And grid mode != SLClone. All the new directions (distributed asset
> system, OpenID, etc) revolve around grid mode.
>
> Standalone is a relic from the early days that should have it's
> finest hour just about now. It's about as useless as a HTTP 1.0
> webserver in view of the things to come.
>
> Melanie
>
>
> Teravus Ovares wrote:
> > Melanie felt the need to resurrect this discussion in another
> > 'subject' (remember, Gmail threads these, so the subjects do matter).
> >
> > She asked me, "what does standalone give me that a local grid doesn't'.
> > 1. A single process
> > 2. A less overhead 'networking' the parts together
> > 3. A quick way to test new things. Add them to the grid server later.
> > (visual studio debugger is easier this way)
> > 4. Structured centralized grid mode wasn't really the design
> > intention. It just sort of morphed into that. Originally the concept
> > for this was a distributed system of individual regions that you could
> > visit via a region browser.
> > 5. SLCLONE--;
> >
> > There are more.. but 5 will do for now.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Teravus
> >
> > On 12/11/08, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> Kyle "G" wrote:
> >> > We have not tried it either (grid mode SQLite) I also ASSumed it would
> work.
> >> > Doh! And FYI Happy Holidays All!
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a grid adapter for sqlite, but all the rest of the
> >> services can be run under it (and writing the griddatastore should be
> >> only a couple hours of work if someone wanted to do that). You just
> >> don't want to do that in an environment that gets much load.
> >>
> >> -Sean
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sean Dague / Neas Bade
> >> sdague at gmail.com
> >> http://dague.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20081219/b19663c1/attachment-0001.html>