[ejabberd] Re: Highly Available setup Qs

Daryl Herzmann akrherz at iastate.edu
Sat Dec 23 03:21:55 MSK 2006


Hi Jeff,

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Jeff McAdams wrote:

> However, I think I can speak a little bit to Daryl's question, being 
> somewhat familiar with what he's doing with XMPP.  First, I'm pretty 
> sure he doesn't need load balancing at all, though it might end up being 
> a nice bonus.  I think the consideration is purely for High 
> Availability, with heavy emphasis on mod_muc.

Correct.  One machine can handle the load, I would really like to have 
live failover not noticed by end-users.

> If you're connected to a node and it fails, then your connection will 
> get dropped (ie, no stateful fail-over of connections), but you could 
> then immediately reconnect to another node and go on about your 
> business.

That isn't quite what I had hoped for, the reconnect step.  Perhaps what I 
am asking ejabberd to do is not possible.

> So...if you ensure that *all* of the people connected to the server are 
> connected to only one of the nodes, do you really *need* mod_muc to be 
> clusterable?  To take it a step farther, do you really need (other than 
> just for ease of management) any of ejabberd's clustering capabilities? 
> Perhaps not.  *shrug*

Agreed.  Perhaps running two seperate, but identical setups with Linux 
IPVS doing failover is what I need.  A brief reconnect is not too much to 
ask users to do :)

thanks!
   daryl


More information about the ejabberd mailing list