Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The increasing demand for real-time data has companies of all kinds seeking ways to stream information to users over the internet, both at their desks and on the go. Two key technological developments are paving the way for this trend: o Internet push/streaming technologies: The web communications approaches known as Comet and HTTP Streaming enable the bi-directional, asynchronous delivery of data to HTTP-connected clients, and the emergent WebSocket API and protocol enable full-duplex bidirectional communications over a TCP connection. o Application frameworks: HTML5/JavaScript, Silverlight, and Flash let developers give users a rich user experience including dynamically updated content through Rich Internet Applications that run in web browsers without requiring software installation on desktops. In addition, platforms like Apples iOS and Googles Android have caused an explosion in the number of lightweight apps capable of real-time internet-based communication. To date, even with these technologies in play, companies that want to push real-time data to their users have to deploy web streaming servers to do so, and integrate them with the middleware platforms they use to connect applications and distribute information within their organization.
2
Proprietary and Confidential
3
Proprietary and Confidential
Solaces Approach
Solaces solution is the only one that can serve as an internal message bus and seamlessly extend messaging services for internet data streaming, cost-effectively providing ubiquitous reach to applications and users inside the organization and anywhere in the world. A Solace appliance serving internet users is deployed in the DMZ where it accepts incoming connections from clients over the internet on one side, and TCP-based intranet connections with the message bus deployed inside the companys firewall (which could be another Solace appliance or third-party messaging software). As a result, Solace makes messaging over the internet a secure extension of the internal messaging network rather than a custom integration/translation between two disparate technologies. A complete discussion of the value of this architecture is below, but here are a few important notes: o Solaces inter-appliance routing protocols reduce the number of connections and amount of traffic through the internal firewall because each Solace Web Messaging appliance can receive each message once and perform per-client fanout from there. This minimizes the impact and load on the internal messaging system, resulting in a very scalable infrastructure. o Solaces appliance provides native access to common LDAP services as well as more sophisticated functions such as per-topic access controls. o Even when deployed exclusively for internet streaming, Solaces appliance provides messaging functionality such as publish/subscribe, request/reply, authentication and authorization, per-topic fanout rate control, and monitoring.
Game-changing Performance
In a variety of tests covering different message rates, numbers of connected clients, and network environments, Solaces solution demonstrated vastly superior performance in terms of raw latency and consistent of latency. The chart below exemplifies the kind of advantage Solace offers. The results of exhaustive testing are fully documented in a 16-page whitepaper that is available via our web site at http://solacesystems.com/webmessaging. This test shows that Solaces solution introduces nominal latency into the equation double digit microseconds compared to the many milliseconds (each one of which represents 1,000 microseconds) introduced by competitive solutions. That means Solace is 50-200x faster. The results also demonstrate the tight latency distribution of Solaces solution, with low standard deviation even th when considering the 99.9 percentile. The test was run with 20,000 topics, and each message consisting of a 50 Byte payload and 5 Byte topic. Each client was configured with 100 subscriptions, and set to receive messages at a rate of 100 messages per second. The network was 1 Gigabit Ethernet.
4
Proprietary and Confidential
5
Proprietary and Confidential