Re: Suggestion
- From: "Peter" <czupet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:27:42 -0500
Thanks Ken for your advice I think I'll go with your suggestion.
I don't want to overstay my welcome, but do you know of any source code
examples or reading material?
Yes database is a single point of failure, but that's not relevant in my
case, if the database goes down the whole company is down, if my program
goes down the users will be screaming "where is my report!", so I have to
take care of my piece of process first.
"Ken Foskey" <rmove.foskey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48a13181@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:32:49 -0500, Peter wrote:
Thanks Ken for your help!
But if the socket server goes down all of the clients are down - single
point of failure.
Use UDP and a broadcast, have all clients monitor the same UDP
broadcast socket. No lag time. Each one advertises which ones they pick
up.
Servers should advertise completed ones. If there is no completed and a
server is idle it should query old incomplete jobs using the same
broadcast and if there is no response pick that one up and start working
on it again (recoverability).
Note that UDP is not reliable and two could start work on exactly the
same piece at the same time. So you have to handle conflicts still, it
just reduces the probability.
I am wondering how you don't have a central point of failure with a
Database anyway?
Ken
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Suggestion
- From: Ken Foskey
- Re: Suggestion
- References:
- Suggestion
- From: Peter
- Re: Suggestion
- From: Ken Foskey
- Re: Suggestion
- From: Peter
- Re: Suggestion
- From: Ken Foskey
- Suggestion
- Prev by Date: Re: WebRequest.GetResponse() - does not work properly
- Next by Date: Re: WebRequest.GetResponse() - does not work properly
- Previous by thread: Re: Suggestion
- Next by thread: Re: Suggestion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|