How would that work if I have my TYPE=COOKIE (JSessionID).  Once the
connections are bound by JSESSIONID they are bound and will not be released
until we have been IDLE for more than the TTL value.

So if I have 10 incoming connections and it sends 8 to BACKEND-1 and 2 to
BACKEND-2, those sessions are basically locked until I restart pound.

To my understanding, DynScale=1 would only work on new incoming Sessions....



On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Joe Gooch <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Random, weighted by priority of each backend.  See svc.c - rand_backend()
> and get_backend()
>
> If you want it to make a decision based on response time, turn on
> DynScale.  (see manpage)
>
> ------
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:  Brad Allison <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date:  Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:11 PM
> To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject:  [Pound Mailing List] Re: how does pound determine which backend
> to pick?
>
>
> I'd really like to know how pound picks the backend.  Is it latency based?
>
> -b
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Brad Allison
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I have two backends.
>
> I have pound set up to use Session Cookies (JSESSIONID) for determining
> stickiness.
>
> I have 10 incoming sessions (each with a unique JSESSIONID).
>
> 8 of them are assigned to the first backend.
>
> 2 are assigned to the second backend.
>
> Why?   Why would it not assign them with a 50/50 load?  Half to the first
> and half to the second.
>
> The backends already had load that was not even.  One was slightly more
> busy than the other.
>
> But how does pound determine which backend to pick when a new session
> comes in?
>
> The problem is this is a heavy weight process, and with 8 of them on my
> first backend, it's going to melt my first backend, while barely touching
> the second one.  And since I've got session affinity with JSESSIONID it's
> going to keep sending the first
>  8 to the first one and the other 2 to the second one.
>
> -b
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to