Dave Steinberg wrote:
We'll look at the possibility of optimising this for randomly assigned
back-ends. In the meantime (for all list members): how many people could
benefit from it?
Theoretically I would, since I use multiple backends w/o session
tracking. In reality I'm probably not at the traffic level where it
would matter.
I'm not sure I love this idea, since the point of not using sticky
sessions is that there's no affinity for a particular backend.
Perhaps it could be optional? "AlwaysReuseConnections" or something?
Regards,
I don't mind this being optional, but I wonder why wouldn't you want to
reuse the connection to the backend? Pound will automatically close the
connection to the backend if backend is HTTP/1.0 or "Connection: close"
is issued, forcing a new connection to backend for new requests.
The case I was describing had backend being HTTP/1.1 and "Connection:
Keep-Alive" issued by backend. In such case, I would think you'd want
pound to reuse the connections. Otherwise, whats the point of having
"Connection: Keep-Alives" on your backend with pound as your proxy?
To us this is not a very big deal, as I changed our configuration to use
IP address for session-binding. But this takes away a randomized
distribution to the backends, in such case. I would think the 2
settings should not be inter-dependent.
--
To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions.
