On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:14:44AM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > >> A less ambitious scheme would have the new proxy take over the client > >> connection and retry the request with the next available backend. > > > > Will not work because the connection from the client to the proxy will > > have been broken during the take-over. The second proxy cannot inherit > > the primary one's sockets. > > Unless you have some kind of shared-memory L4 magic like the original > poster talked about, that allows taking over an existing TCP > connection.
in this case of course I agree. But that means kernel-level changes. > > What you're talking about are idempotent HTTP requests, which are quite > > well documented in RFC2616. > > That was the exact word I was looking for. I didn't know that PUT was > idempotent, but the others make sense. in fact it also makes sense for PUT because you're supposed to use this method to send a file. Normally, you can send it as many times as you want, the result will not change. Willy
