I too agree that, from a manageabillity + intuitiveness standpoint, we should use the same
process, but here's more food for thought (hope you're hungry!) :-)
"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote :
|
| 2) A and B now have to independently request state rather than C doing a single push.
Don't know if there are any issues with the coordination involved there. Now that we
are using anycast, the network utilization is likely the same either way.
|
|
Even with anycast, it is not the same. Currently, anycast forces a unicast to the members
individually. IIRC, if the transport is UDP and multicast is enabled, this is achieved by
multicasting and only named recipients accepting the comms (Bela or Vlad, perhaps you
could confirm this?).
If this is true, then the pull approach is more expensive on UDP/multicast, even with
anycast.
Another cost with the pull approach is processing time building the state transfer
payload. And also the concurrency cost on the data owner, locking the tree to generate
this payload. This happens once with push, n times with pull.
Both of these gets more expensive (O(n)) based on number of buddies though, so with just 1
buddy per node (the default) this should not be any more expensive.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3995761#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...