I know, I know, at first blush it sounds like a bad idea, but if you let the idea marinate overnight and then sear over red hot mesquite – it ends up being a pretty tasty idea. No that isn’t the sound of vertebrae popping in the background:)
Would it be possible to not comit session state to the stone and use something like Ramons current post on scalling ( http://onsmalltalk.com/programming/smalltalk/seaside/scaling-seaside-more-advanced-load-balancing-and-publishing/ ) to redirect users to the same gem.
But, 1 Session per VM?
As I’ve detailed elsewhere, there are good reasons for not using a vm to serve multiple concurrent sessions (without doing a commit per request), but if one were to serve a single session per vm, the good reasons are rendered moot.
With 1 Session per VM, session state does not need to be persisted and voila! no commits due to changes in session state. One should be able to approach the same sort of performance achieved with navigation URLs (i.e., 130 pages/second running on commodity hardware: 2.4Ghz Intel, with 1 dual core cpu, running SUSE Enterprise 10, with 2Gb of ram and 2 disk drives – no raw partitions) while continuing to use rich, stateful Seaside components.
Isn’t 1 Session per VM wasteful?
It depends upon how you look at it. The only thing that might be wasted is memory/swap space. A couple of hundred extra processes on todays hardware is not a big deal unless you are swapping.
If you have 100,000 unique visitors per month and a 10 minute session expiry, you end up needing around 20 sessions. Throw in a fudge factor of 5x and you’re looking at 100 sessions.
100 VMs at 100Mb per VM (tunable) should consume 10Gb of RAM, unless you use mmap (which we do). With mmap, only the memory that is actually used is allocated in RAM. The GemStone/S object manager maps and unmaps chunks of memory on demand so the full 100Mb will only be used if needed and when the memory is no longer needed, it is returned to the system. Without some real benchmarks I can’t tell for sure, but I think it is reasonable to assume that 100 100Mb GemStone vms could run comfortably in 5Gb or less of real memory.
On the flip side, in-vm garbage collection is much cheaper, because only the working set for a single session needs to be swept. When session state for multiple sessions is colocated in the same vm, there is noticeable overhead, so with 1 Session per VM we trade memory for CPU.
We will run some real benchmarks to characterize the tradeoffs between memory, CPU, and commits, but based on back of the envelope calculations it appears that 1 Session per VM is a viable approach for scaling Seaside applications with GemStone/S.