[omniORB] Load balancing omninames]

[Al Slater]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

renny.koshy at rubixinfotech.com wrote:
> Al,
>
> Do you really mean load balancing or are you trying to get redundancy?

Redundancy is the main aim, but load balancing (via a F5 bigip) would be
a bonus.

Duncan Grisby wrote:
> Having said that, if you need to load balance the naming service, I'd
> suggest that you are using it too much. It's only intended as an initial
> bootstrapping mechanism, not for registration of huge numbers of
> objects.

We use it as a backing store for object management system, so when our
object manager loads (after it crashed?) it can find any servants that
are running.

Having said that, I have come up with a scheme that does away with the
requirement for omniNames to be synchronised.  We run a set of omniNames
with a static set of object refs (they point to a virtual ip) and each
set of servers actually runs with it's own, private, instantiation of
omniNames.


Thanks for your comments,



- --
Al Slater

Technical Director
Stanton Consultancy Ltd

Phone : +44 (0)1273 666607
Fax   : +44 (0)1273 666601
email : al.slater at scluk.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFChMSGz4fTOFL/EDYRAjcIAJsHo/HCgaz4nhKiql+Spwfabhbm4QCgjDOk
OJYQA3JWdsrjsw6lO9uf4e8=
=aX35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----