R
Raymond DeCampo
Hello,
I am in the early stages of fleshing out an interface between two
existing products. One possible solution involves RMI. However, part
of the team has some concerns with RMI, specifically when under a high load.
First, there seems to be a concern that if every client is connected to
the same RMI server, that the clients will be processed in sequence. I
would expect them to be processed in parallel up to a point. E.g.,
using a thread pool or some such device. In other words, I would expect
that an RMI server would act much like a web server and that this
behavior would be essentially free, i.e., provided by the RMI subsystem.
Second, a proposed solution to this issue is to create an RMI server for
each client. This seems like a radical and wasteful solution to me.
I would appreciate if someone could guide me to some good sources on the
above issues, or provide some "war stories" of your own experiences. I
have no professional experience with RMI (if you discount EJBs), only
academic experience.
Thanks,
Ray
I am in the early stages of fleshing out an interface between two
existing products. One possible solution involves RMI. However, part
of the team has some concerns with RMI, specifically when under a high load.
First, there seems to be a concern that if every client is connected to
the same RMI server, that the clients will be processed in sequence. I
would expect them to be processed in parallel up to a point. E.g.,
using a thread pool or some such device. In other words, I would expect
that an RMI server would act much like a web server and that this
behavior would be essentially free, i.e., provided by the RMI subsystem.
Second, a proposed solution to this issue is to create an RMI server for
each client. This seems like a radical and wasteful solution to me.
I would appreciate if someone could guide me to some good sources on the
above issues, or provide some "war stories" of your own experiences. I
have no professional experience with RMI (if you discount EJBs), only
academic experience.
Thanks,
Ray