thanx for the (sad) news, Cody I take it that this also impacts on CFLOCK as well, yes? (named, scoped, etc)
would it be an issue with CFTRANSACTION? I can't remember, but transactions would be per connection object.... per machine, yes? (same database) last question: is there other sorts of load balancing that's more CF-friendly that I might (have a snow-flakes chance in hell) suggest as an alternative if crunch time came? cheers barry.b On 9/20/06, Cody Caughlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah using the SESSION scope ties you to the disk on the given web server that created your session in the first place, this is called a "sticky session". This is the case if you are using disk based storage for sessions. Which, as far as I know, CF only supports this storage mechanism. With session stored in the DB or Memcache or some other persistence storage medium than you are not tied to a given web server and can bounce between all of them. If your App scoped variables are not user-specific, then I am assuming all isntances of CF have the same stuff stored in the App scope. Once they venture into user-specific land, then you will be having problems, as you figured. /Cody Barry Beattie wrote: > I'm sorry to post this question here but my regular CF list doesn't > seem to have had much experiance in this area and I'm hoping someone > here has. my knowledge of load balancing regarding application > archetecture is rudamentary (at best) > > > we've got a series of apps on clusters of two servers (each) with load > balancing using Layer 7 switches. works great if one machine get's > flakey, etc. this has all been done before I arrived. > > one thing that I'm a bit puzzled over, though, is all the apps have > been designed without the use of session scope. in fact great reams of > code have been written to handle authorisation via custom ISAPI > components and headers to get around this, and is done on every > request. > > it also means that ideas of using application- or server-scoped > collections of data (or singleton components with state) can't be used > (they could exist on one server and not on the other). > > is this correct? using load balancing like this precludes the use of > shared scopes when it's needed across machines? > > is there any easy way** around this? > > note: these boxes are all CF6.1, although I am always looking for good > reasons to get the boss to upgrade. > > (**something simplier than, say, getting webservices and/or gateways > to communicate between machines - I'm thinking of the server-scoped > singletons holding data) > > thank for your help > barry.b > > > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the > instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm > > CFCDev is supported by: > Katapult Media, Inc. > We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! > www.katapultmedia.com > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
