[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] Speed of the different discovery providers
- From: Wim Jongman <wim.jongman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 04:57:11 +0100
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=RdZL5qTDcWmwOaFtisrBkIRf+q5zn3qRHRtZf39gzvPL6+KyrbfwP+gdtk8TmzUeL/ 3Oof57fIU45h9mUKW4hjO+JkDyDXJwJlDz+iwtvRAjbKrjvYn775DUr2VJgHG9DiH9vy f7YoDX0s0nLH4ZnBR6aniAcILA2xphXFAEx1c=
Hard to say. I think ZK syncs its data with other zk nodes in a highly optimized way. The bigger the network, the more effective z-discovery is in getting a certain service to the required endpoints. It spreads out like oil on water so to say. For smaller networks it might be less effective. Again, hard to say.
What is your use case?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Martin Petzold <mpetzold@xxxxxxx>
Am 26.01.2011 15:01, schrieb Markus Alexander Kuppe:
I would like to optimize how fast a new service gets discovery/a gone service gets undiscovered in a subnet. Could zookeeper be somehow faster, even if SLP and JmDNS are more low level.
how fast a new service gets
discovery/a gone service gets undiscovered