Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache?

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?