Brian Akins wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Yep, and that's why I think we close the connection each time; > > umm, I thought the balancer would try to keep the connection open to > backends? A single client may wind up talking to multiple backend pools > over the course of a connection (/css -> A, /images -> B, etc.). > > > we're wasting sockets. > > > > we'd be saving start up time on each socket. > > So just to be clear, there is no connection pooling in proxy_balancer, > or is there? Did I imagine that it was supposed to be? >
It's *kind* of there, but not really fully fleshed out... I think of a connection pool as one shared among all entities and with longer longevity that what we currently do (tuck them away in proxy_conn_rec). -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
