jboss.xml and deployment of same app into many partitions..?

[buckman1]

Currently I am using a single partition for a test app. It works... pretty good I might add other than a few minor issues that Sacha is aware of.

Now, what happens in our ASP when I have 4 big applications to deploy, and i want each in their own partition? Can I leave each of the nodes in each partition set at the DefaultPartition name? Or do I have to specify partition names? My concern is, what if one app is in one partition and later we add a second partition to scale it... do we have to specify in the jboss.xml for every bean in both the partitions that they belong to one or the other? From the docs, it seems that if application A is deployed on node 1, 2 and 3 in partition A (assuming I name it A), then I have to specify in the jboss.xml for each bean the partition it is deployed in... "A". Now, if we scale, add a second partition for this one application to handle mroe load, do I have to name the new partition B so that the nodes in it are not part of the same partition of A? I am pretty sure this is the case, just not entirely clear. So again, my concern is, I have this one code base, one jboss.xml for a group of beans, and it specifies partition A. Now, I want to take that same .ear file, and drop it into the newly added partition "B", only the jboss.xml shows Partition A as the name the bean deploy to. So does this mean for a single app that would be deployed in multiple partitions I would need to keep separate jboss.xml files for each partition?

Please advise.

Thank you.

[slaboure]

When configuring your nodes, do you want them to be part of a single partition or of multiple partitions?

If they will be part of a single partition, just change the multicast address so that nodes can still use the default name for partition: it is easier to manage.

If a given node will be part of multiple partitions, then you need to give a distinct name to each partition and associate, EJB-per-EJB, the configuration to a given partition name.

Cheers,


sacha

[buckman1]

For each app, all nodes in that partition that the app will be running in should be a single partition. They wont span multiple partitions.

Originally my worry was adding 2 or more partitions with 3 nodes each using the in-memory replication stuff, so that at most 3 nodes worth of replication would occur in any one partition. However, if the sub-node clustering comes into action in the 3.2.x branch, then we can simply use a single partition for one application, and add hundreds of nodes if necessary, so long as only a group of 3 at a time are sub-nodes for state replication. Thus, we can add 3 more nodes each time we want to scale, and sub-node them to each other. Is this the correct understanding of how sub-nodes will work? When will this be ready for testing?