Hmmm... this has me thinking about maybe using the provider interface to
implement the communication mechanism... let me mull this over.
> On Nov 30, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Yeah, I looked for something else, esp various pubsub implementations, but
> they really didn't fit
Yeah, I looked for something else, esp various pubsub implementations, but they
really didn't fit in with what was needed.
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 3:02 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
> On 29/11/2018 07:02, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Le 28/11/2018 à 02:33, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
>>> Hi,
On 27.11.2018. 12:23, Jim Jagielski wrote:
In the coming week or so, I will be committing my load balance,
load determination and discovery work to a sandbox trunk. Many
people have asked for more info, so here we go.
Thanks for the info.
Like said, I'm for the idea for
@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Plan to add sandbox branch
Le 28/11/2018 à 02:33, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
Hi, Jim;
I'm coming up empty on a search against the Google-machine for SURVEY protocol.
Any pointers you can share?
Hi
Not sure if the answers already posted are what you are looking for.
Here
On 29/11/2018 07:02, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 28/11/2018 à 02:33, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
>> Hi, Jim;
>> I'm coming up empty on a search against the Google-machine for SURVEY
>> protocol. Any pointers you can share?
>>
> Hi
>
> Not sure if the answers already posted are what you are
Le 28/11/2018 à 02:33, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
Hi, Jim;
I'm coming up empty on a search against the Google-machine for SURVEY
protocol. Any pointers you can share?
Hi
Not sure if the answers already posted are what you are looking for.
Here are some links:
How often are nodes updating themselves? Are they only updating their main
proxy server or each other in a “multicast” fashion? How about if one of the
nodes crash before sending back an update? Are you locking a session to a
specific backend host, keep it tracked on the proxy/front end server
https://nanomsg.org
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 8:33 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, Jim;
> I'm coming up empty on a search against the Google-machine for SURVEY
> protocol. Any pointers you can share?
>
> I'm also curious what your thoughts are about dealing with growth of the
> worker pool
On 11/28/2018 02:33 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, Jim;
> I'm coming up empty on a search against the Google-machine for SURVEY
> protocol. Any pointers you can share?
>
> I'm also curious what your thoughts are about dealing with growth of the
> worker pool beyond the control of the proxy admin.
Hi, Jim;
I'm coming up empty on a search against the Google-machine for SURVEY
protocol. Any pointers you can share?
I'm also curious what your thoughts are about dealing with growth of the
worker pool beyond the control of the proxy admin. For example, if I configure
a balancer for 10
In the coming week or so, I will be committing my load balance,
load determination and discovery work to a sandbox trunk. Many
people have asked for more info, so here we go.
Basically, this new feature uses nanomsg (nng) to implement the
SURVEY protocol between workers (nodes) and the front end
11 matches
Mail list logo
