Henri Gomez wrote:
Well you we always indicate some sort of CPU power for a remote (a sort
of bogomips) and use this in computation.
Why should the CPU power matter, what if the high power CPU is getting
all the complex requests and the lower power CPU is ending up with
simple request
The TomcatoMips indicator was just something to tell that it's not the
raw CPU power which is important, but the estimated LOAD capacity of
an instance.
Accounting informations should included average time to execute a
request, number of thread in use (AJP/HTTP), estimated free memory...
Just
Henri Gomez wrote:
The TomcatoMips indicator was just something to tell that it's not the
raw CPU power which is important, but the estimated LOAD capacity of
an instance.
But its still apache working out TomcatoMips. I think that approach is
still flawed.
I'm saying only the server end
Henri Gomez wrote:
The TomcatoMips indicator was just something to tell that it's not the
raw CPU power which is important, but the estimated LOAD capacity of
an instance.
Accounting informations should included average time to execute a
request, number of thread in use (AJP/HTTP), estimated
like alteon load balancer from nortel... they provide health check for many protocole...for http is only simple get to backend... and on the backend you must provide a responde this check (ex:statics file)...you can define how many ping after how it consider the backend dead...and how many
why not add proxy hook like scheme handler do to that ?From: Ruediger Pluem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: dev@httpd.apache.orgSent: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:04:55 +0200Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: mod_proxy_balancer/mod_proxy_ajp TODOOn 06/19/2006 10:23 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: Henri Gomez wrote:
you must have the possibility to add a wheight to each backend to moderate the load (like nortel alteon)... no?From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: dev@httpd.apache.orgSent: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:02:44 +0200Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: mod_proxy_balancer/mod_proxy_ajp TODOHenri Gomez
Henri Gomez wrote:
Important point in load balancing will be to collect CPU load (job
load) from the remote.
We often make the mistake to split requests between servers as if it
cost the same CPU power (or cpu load) for each of them, but in Java /
J2EE some requests could be more CPU/IO/DB
I have had a need for this functionality in one application or other for a while now and have been researching various means of acheiving it without actually coding.mod_backhand (
www.backhand.org) which seems to be an abandoned project was very promising a few years back.I think, section 3.3 of
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual
Bill Stoddard wrote:
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
beckend servers. The servers that have shorter reply
time will get more load.
+1 on the work, but I question the usefulness of this routing algorithm.
Does reply
Bill Stoddard wrote:
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
beckend servers. The servers that have shorter reply
time will get more load.
+1 on the work, but I question the usefulness of this routing algorithm.
Does reply
Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If this maps what's currently been done in mod_jk, than
a big +1. It's been on my todo but have simply not
had the cycles to do.
That is exactly the thing that I'm planing to do.
During last year there was a lots of good stuff
added to the mod_jk that have even force some
Mladen Turk wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
1. Additional by business load balancing method
that will load balance on the actual load of the
beckend servers. The servers that have shorter reply
time will get more load.
+1 on the work, but I question the usefulness of this routing
Bill Stoddard wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Once mod_proxy has access to lots of interesting bits, it can be
programmed to detect and respond to anomalous application behaviors
Huh, the thing you are talking about is some sort of
rule based engine. Without having a virtual file system
Hi,
sorry for breaking the mail threading, but I read this list offline
before and just subscribed to it now.
I would like to release mod_jk 1.2.16 soon, but as soon as that release
looks good, I would be willing to help syncing features between
mod_proxy_balancer/mod_proxy_ajp and mod_jk.
On 06/19/2006 06:21 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm would like to give few notes on the things I'm
currently working on, so that eventually no duplicate
work is done if someone already have similar things
on his drawing board.
1. Additional by business load balancing method
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
2006/6/19, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 06/19/2006 06:21 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hi guys,
Rainer Jung wrote:
Hi,
sorry for breaking the mail threading, but I read this list offline
before and just subscribed to it now.
I would like to release mod_jk 1.2.16 soon, but as soon as that release
looks good, I would be willing to help syncing features between
Henri Gomez wrote:
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
And may thanks for such a great idea Henri ;)
Actually its a great way to
2006/6/19, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
And may thanks for such a great
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache modules does for HTTP...
Something like that was
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache modules does for HTTP...
A pluggable balancing
On 06/19/2006 10:37 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache
Rainer Jung wrote:
A pluggable balancing strategy sounds nice. What I'm not sure about, if
the size of problem is big enough to justify the work.
A lot of it already exists already. That was my whole intent
on the move to LB providers in proxy, and making such things
as finding the best
Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk / mod_proxy
modules like apache modules does for
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+1. Just one thought: I think it would be useful to have this 'health check'
approach somewhat generic so that we can implement the call to it inside
mod_proxy
and its connection pooling itself (e.g. with providers supplied by schema
handlers / modules).
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If this maps what's currently been done in mod_jk, than
a big +1. It's been on my todo but have simply not
had the cycles to do.
That is exactly the thing that I'm planing to do.
During last year there was a lots of good stuff
added to the
On 06/19/2006 10:23 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Good to see that PING/PONG got such a good response here.
When I added this to mod_jk it was just a quick way to detect hang
JVMs but it seems to many on the TC-DEV not a very usefull feature :)
And may thanks for such a
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/19/2006 10:37 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
For the load-balancing algorythm, do you plan to propose a bunch of
pre build algos and let users select the right one for their use or
allow externals modules ? We could see that like mod_jk /
Important point in load balancing will be to collect CPU load (job
load) from the remote.
We often make the mistake to split requests between servers as if it
cost the same CPU power (or cpu load) for each of them, but in Java /
J2EE some requests could be more CPU/IO/DB consuming than others.
33 matches
Mail list logo
