It isn't just the messages that need to scale. Messaging is probably the bottom of the list of use-cases for groups in practice. It's the bit where most of the actual *problems* show up, but it isn't actually as important a part of group scaling as the rest of the group functions.
On 17/04/2010 11:27 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: > Scaling of group messages is simple however. > With one server per group you get a long way. > > Lets say, 2000 connections per server on average. > Usually about 1/10th of the users is online, so > you can keep adding groups to a server until > the total number of group members is around 20,000. > Then you add a server. > > The routing to the servers can be done by using the DNS > system, for example <hash-of-group-name>.groups.secondlife.com > > And if you throw a good socket library against it > (not one using select or poll), you can add to 20,000 > users per server; that still won't be a problem CPU-wise. > Unfortunately some kernel tweaking and expertise is needed > in that case, but just hire some IRC admin of a large server > and they can tell you how to do that. > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 06:20:21PM +0200, Dale Glass wrote: > >> IIRC, the main issue with the group limit and IM is scaling. There can be 70K >> people online. Suppose you bump the groups limit to 100, and those 70K people >> end up belonging to 50 groups on average. Now you've double IM load, and if >> you remember the days where most group chat sessions failed, it's probably a >> quite heavy loaded system. >> >> Jabber would have the same issue: how to handle 70K people, many with >> multiple >> conversations and conferences. A small jabber server is easy, but supporting >> 70K logged in accounts is a serious undertaking. >> > -- Tateru Nino http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/ _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
