Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache?

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know a lot of sites with more than a million simultaneous 
stateful sessions, Aaron.  There is a huge difference between anonymous 
user sites like Amazon and business sites.  Even in an anonymous site, 
you can easily segment your application between stateless and stateful 
sections (which is the beauty of something like EGL, where it's very 
easy to switch between stateless and stateful connections).

But this is a little bit of a red herring.  The real limitation is that 
you can only have 65,000 connections on an IP address.  If you have over 
65K connections, you need multiple IP addresses and once you have 
multiple IP addresses, you automatically have a way to segment the load 
among multiple servers.  So even if you were trying to run Amazon on an 
IBM i, you could do it.

Joe

> What's interesting to me about stateful sessions is that even with the
> biggest IBM i you can purchase they are still finite as I understand it.  By
> that I mean the job number size is only six digits.  That's not to say you
> couldn't have a smart router on the front end sending requests to a "server
> farm of IBM i's" (felt weird saying that btw :-).
>
> I've always felt I was more productive when coding an application that was
> stateful just because there are less things to think about, but then again
> that would be comparing apples to oranges because my stateful coding has
> mostly been in green screen and my stateless in the browser.  Would be
> interesting to write a stateless green screen app :-)
>
> Aaron Bartell
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Kevin Turner<kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
> > Yes I guess that is the concern. In a stateless environment I can have,
> > say, 10 threads/jobs managing 300 concurrent sessions. In a stateful
> > environment I would have 300 threads/jobs. Is it a problem?  I am not sure.
> > With a 1000 concurrent sessions, is it just as efficient?