Scott Balneaves wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:27:38AM -0400, Francis Giraldeau wrote: > >> For simple loadbalancing, maybe I would let the LDM_SERVER as is and >> create a new variable for matter, for example : LDM_SERVERS_LIST. I >> understand that for simple loadbalancing, servers state won't be used >> and only a randomize on the list will be done. That's good and scalable. >> But at least, a server that is down should be automaticaly removed from >> the list. > > Well, I don't particularily like the idea of two variables, as then it becomes > unclear for users as to what variable does what, and becomes a support issue > later on. > > On the other hand, if LDM_SERVER is "host1", it's fairly clear what's implied > and if it's "host1 host2 host3 host4" it's also clear what's intended. Some > administrators might like the loadbalancing mechanism to NOT return a list, > but rather, make the choice for the user. Others may want to provide the > options. I think one variable nicely covers both cases, and keeps it > simple (i.e. one variable to worry about).
I really likes this idea. Jim McQuillan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
