[opensource-dev] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVP Topics to a different mailing list

Tateru Nino tateru.nino at gmail.com
Sat Apr 17 06:33:16 PDT 2010


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/



More information about the opensource-dev mailing list