Cody Caughlan 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.
I could have sworn we've used the DB to store sessions in the past...
But I do not know how it was done (I know it wasn't manual through code
though). I could be wrong, but for some reason I thought we did store
them in the DB. Maybe it was client variables, though. It was quite
some time ago.
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]
