On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 17:27 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote: > On 4/27/07, Cliff Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, how is this ugly? This should be mostly handled > > transparently by the proxy (i.e. sends same sessions to same backend). > > If one Web server dies, all the users using that Web server lose their > sessions. That sucks. It also limits the effectiveness of the load > balancer. It can only redistribute *new* users instead of each new > request. Ah. Makes sense. I guess reading books *does* help! > > > or b) use a session server (less ugly). > > > > And what do you recommend for this? > > If I had to make the decision today, I'd probably use memcache. mmm. Memcached rocks. > > I've not seen this approach, so I'm > > curious (or maybe the proxy acts as a session server, so we're talking > > about the same thing?). > > What do you mean the proxy acts as a session server? I don't know of > any load balancers who can act as session servers. I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by "session server", but now I do. So you are correct. I was thinking perhaps you meant "external process that maintains sessions across backends" in which case some load balancers do. > By the way, this topic is covered nicely in "Scalable Internet > Architectures" and "Building Scalable Web Sites". > > (weird, de ja vu ;) If only I had time to read actual books rather than bug people on the net for answers... Cliff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
