HUP handling: a thought

[Chris Parker]

On May 6, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Nicolas Baradakis wrote:

>>   But if all you're doing is adding one realm... why the heck do you
>> want to reload the other 3000 realms   to add just one?  That doesn't
>> make sense.  It's an O(N^2) solution to a problem that should be O 
>> (1).
>
> I agree. But large sites should have multiple servers, therefore
> perhaps they could address the issue differently.

Being a "large site", I can speak to this.  :)  We stagger HUPs to  
reload realm
changes today.  It *still* causes a noticeable impact on connection  
stats that
are tracked by our largest customers.  We had to roll back from 'on- 
demand'
changes to scheduling periodic HUPs to lessen the impact on our  
performance
stats.

The impact is that a larger percentage of connection attempts timeout/ 
fail due to
the hit the server takes to reload the configs, even when they are  
staggered
across multiple servers.

That's my underlying desire to be able to change the server details  
for realm "foo"
without taking a hit on the 3000 other realms, which aren't changing.

-Chris
--
Chris Parker
Director, Systems
StarNet - US LEC, now a PAETEC Company

(888)212-0099   Fax (847)963-1302
Wholesale Internet and VoIP Services     http://www.megapop.net

NOTICE: Message is sent IN CONFIDENCE to addressees. It may contain  
information that is privileged, proprietary or confidential.