Good point, we run about 500-1500 per sec, but we are also very cheap so a hardware solution is out.
The overhead of a trivial transaction should be minimal, and I though this code might do an automatic failover.
Cheers
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Weeg
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: RE: Peer Review - Load Balancing
im not sure i understand the point.
you, seem to creating more overhead in the process.
how many transactions do you predict will be hitting
the sql servers? what size are the machines, cpu/ram?
just wondering.
i work in an environment that gets hit with transactional
processing at a rate of about 25-40 records per second
being processed.
ONE MACHINE :) now, if you are expecting more than this,
well, i cant speak about it.
but on the same note, wouldnt some sort of hardware load
balancing or a sql server cluster make more sense?
tony
-----Original Message-----
From: admin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:53 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Peer Review - Load Balancing
I slapped together some code to provide a very simple load balance
system for coldfusion servers that are using sql on other boxes.
I would appreciate if the experts on this list could have a look at the
code (it can be found at
http://www.y2kinternet.com/timetest/timetest.zip ) and make any
suggestions, positive and negative about the code and the concept.
Cheers
Richard
p.s.
I'm a lousy sql and coldfusion programmer !
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
