Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Horizontal scalibility #1000

Closed
slawus opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Horizontal scalibility #1000

slawus opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@slawus
Copy link

slawus commented May 11, 2020

Hi, big fan of the project here.

Me and my team are working on a simple chat service for our webpage. While at the start we expect around ~1k simultaneous users on chat, we might quickly go to 100k, distributed between ~20 channels.

Here is my question: is it currently possible to horizontally scale Oragono, i.e. run multiple instances of oragonos with load balancer in front of it, with the assurance of users messages being in synced between instances? If not, what codebase changes would need to happen to add such feature to the server? We might be interested in developing this on our side. Unfortunately I have little no knowledge about IRC protocol. Looking at it from pure web perspective, i feel like there should be an PUB/SUB that all instances would use to distribute new messages to all the other instances.

@slingamn
Copy link
Member

Thanks for your interest in the project!

The feature you're describing is not currently implemented. It would be possible to implement it, although there are some architectural barriers. It may also be possible to get the desired scalability using simpler optimizations (#484 comes to mind). It would help to know more about the timeframe and the requirements for this project (when is this due? what client are you planning to use? which features of Oragono are most relevant to your use case?). In case any of this information is sensitive, I'm emailing you my contact information along with Dan's.

@slingamn
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of #1532

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants