Curtis Maloney wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be reading more into his words than was intended, but I think
this demonstrates the problem. Distributing
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be reading more into his words than was intended, but I think
this demonstrates the problem. Distributing multiple requests for one
section across multiple servers is (what I consider to be)
undesirable.
You
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be reading more into his words than was intended, but I think
this demonstrates the problem. Distributing multiple requests for one
section across multiple servers is (what I
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be reading more into his words than was intended, but I think
this demonstrates the problem. Distributing multiple requests for one
Curtis Maloney wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, ethan mindlace fremen wrote:
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Yes, however his point is that by having each Zope instance
'predominantly' serving one portion of the site, its cache will contain
more objects relevant, and thus be just that little bit
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:22:16 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think most people seem to be missing the point here.
The idea is that ALL servers can serve ALL content. HOWEVER, the 'load
balancer' will opt for a certain server for a certain URL, in order to
improve cache
Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:22:16 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think most people seem to be missing the point here.
The idea is that ALL servers can serve ALL content. HOWEVER, the 'load
balancer' will opt for a certain server for a certain URL,
Curtis Maloney wrote:
I think most people seem to be missing the point here.
While I think Bill addressed this, I am not missing your point. By subdomaining
areas, you can assign those subdomains an IP address, which can be primarily
served by a Zope Client.
The idea is that ALL servers can
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:45:49 -0600, Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone can suggest something good to run in front of
2 zopes talking to a zeo server - for failover and load balancing. I
One disadvantage is that solution is that each Zope will have poor
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
Your multiple Zopes can all serve all of these sections, however
theres not enough storage for each machine to hold all the sections
simultaneously.
As I understand ZEO, each machine _doesn't_ hold the site. The ZEO
clients (servers) communicate
Curtis Maloney wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
Your multiple Zopes can all serve all of these sections, however
theres not enough storage for each machine to hold all the sections
simultaneously.
As I understand ZEO, each machine _doesn't_ hold the site. The ZEO
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Yes, however his point is that by having each Zope instance 'predominantly'
serving one portion of the site, its cache will contain more objects
relevant, and thus be just that little bit faster.
Personally, I find this such a simple idea that it MUST be good. (o8
So
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, ethan mindlace fremen wrote:
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Yes, however his point is that by having each Zope instance
'predominantly' serving one portion of the site, its cache will contain
more objects relevant, and thus be just that little bit faster.
Personally, I find
13 matches
Mail list logo
