RE: Stateful Web Services...

That doesn't jive with why stateful services that are pinned at a
particular node still perform substantially better than
stateful/connection-oriented protocols.  And I don't know why it's
hard/impossible to move tpc connections from one node to another.  I've
meant to look into this for some time but never gotten around to it.
Kind of like the air I breathe analogies.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Savas Parastatidis [mailto:Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:12 PM
> To: David Orchard; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Stateful Web Services...
> 
> Dave,
> 
> > Even your quotation of stateless interaction doesn't make it clear.
> Roy
> > has said that a cookie with a session id is a stateless interaction
to
> a
> > stateful service.  This differs from something like ftp in which the
> > connection contains part of the state.  One way that http scales
> better
> > than ftp is because http can tear down the connections because of
the
> > stateless interactions, and connections are very costly to maintain
> open
> > for potentially large numbers of clients.
> >
> > Now as to what's going on at the plumbing level in tcp/ip stacks I
> > haven't a clue about.  Why ftp creating and keeping large #s of
> > connections open with state being embodied in the ftp/tcp connection
> is
> > soo much more costly and less scalable than an http stateless tcp
> > connection is a mystery to me.  Especially when software can do SSL
> > connections that can be fairly chatty and bandwidth consuming.
> 
> 
> Isn't it the case that because of the stateless connections one can
farm
> the processing of the requests and achieve higher levels of
scalability
> even if more bandwidth is consumed?
> 
> .savas.

Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:19:29 UTC