On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +,
JuanE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not think of that. Good suggestion.
It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down
server out of the rotation relatively quickly. If not, then you'll waste
considerable time polling
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 9 August 2000 at 09:12:29 -0500
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +,
JuanE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not think of that. Good suggestion.
It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down
server out
On 2 Aug 2000, Frank D. Cringle wrote:
Generating a random permutation algorithmically is not too easy.
Oh really?
int i, j, x;
int a[N];
for (i = 0; i N; ++i)
a[i] = i;
for (i = N - 1; i 0; --i) {
j = random(i);
x = a[i]; a[i] = a[j]; a[j] = x;
}
where random(i) is
Pavel Kankovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2 Aug 2000, Frank D. Cringle wrote:
Generating a random permutation algorithmically is not too easy.
Oh really?
[ swap each element with a randomly chosen partner ]
Yes, that will do it. When I was originally working with this stuff
the
"Austad, Jay" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: JuanE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Assume you have 4 servers A, B, C, D, and that server C is down. When your
random seed hits server A, B or D (with probability 1/4, respectively) the
message will go through fine. When your random seeds hits server
the dead one, and give everything an even chance again.
Jay
-Original Message-
From: JuanE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 6:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods
Jay,
If I understand this correctly
I like the idea of statically listing them, but as you mentioned it is not
very scalable. The shuffling can be very expensive. I believe it would grow
with N^2. Instead of shuffling, just plain random sampling would be better
computationally. See me previous posting.
I think this is a "profile,
Re-read my point: its unnecessary. I didn't say it wouldn't work. I said
the CPU use of doing it this way was unnecessary over a simpler round-robin
approach (After picking an initial random server).
Note: I think using an array of pointers to server addresses would allow you
to do your
I agree with you, I forgot to mention that, sorry. I didn't have enough
Mountain Dew yet. :)
-Original Message-
From: Michael T. Babcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:44 AM
To: Austad, Jay; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: updated load balancing qmail
-
From: Michael T. Babcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:44 AM
To: Austad, Jay; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods
Re-read my point: its unnecessary. I didn't say it wouldn't work. I said
the CPU use of doing
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
JuanE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 2 August 2000 at 16:37:36 GMT
I agree with you both (Jay and Michael), at least partially. I agree that
altough what Jay proposes will work, it is too much computation and that a
simpler round-robin (after picking initial
: "JuanE" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods
I agree with you both (Jay and Michael), at least partially. I agree that
altough what Jay proposes will work, it is too much c
Ok, I fixed it. It now just rotates the serverindex.pos[] by a random
amount, and then loops through until it finds a good server. rand() is still
seeded with milliseconds from the system clock. I used memcpy() to move the
array around instead of loops to make it more efficient.
Would it be
13 matches
Mail list logo
