-
1. Re: Configuration issue
manik Jan 19, 2009 5:21 AM (in response to danieltravin)Hmm - if there is no other shared data at all, you could use non-clustered caches in all of your JVMs that actually use the country/city data, configure them to use a TcpDelegatingCacheLoader, and then set up a single cache on a single JVM with all of your data, and stick a TcpCacheServer in front of it.
-
2. Re: Configuration issue
danieltravin Jan 19, 2009 11:00 AM (in response to danieltravin)I think I understand you advise, but i doubt whether this appoach synchronize data between JVMs that use same node if none of them is a coordinator?
Example of JVMs and nodes that they use
Coordinaror JVM
/UK
/UK/Cardiff
/UK/London
/UK/Bristol
/Spain
/Spain/Madrid
/Spain/Barselona
JVM1:
/Spain
/Spain/Madrid
JVM2:
/UK/Bristol
/UK
JVM3:
/UK/Cardiff
/UK
JVM4:
/Spain
/Spain/Barselona
So, when JVM3 changes a leaf of /UK, the instance of JBC must propagate changes to JVM2 and to coordinator immediately.
As far as I see from the source code TcpDelegatingCLassloader will send changes only to coordinator JVM node through CacheServer.
And does this TCPDelegatingCacheLoader make use of UDP and multicasting?
My problem is that I am trying to cluster a TreeCache between JVMs on the LAN. But I do not want to share the entire tree between all members of the cluster in order to reduce traffic.
The configuration I expect to exist is like this
For coordinator JVM<clustering mode="replication" clusterName="MySmartCluster" coordinatorNode="true">
For JVM1<clustering mode="replication" clusterName="MySmartCluster" coordinatorNode="false"> <fgnlist> <fqn>/Spain</fqn> <fqn>/Spain/Madrid</fqn> </fqnlist>
Etc.
I think my question is clear.