Toby Dickenson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:07:30 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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, b
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:07:30 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 pr
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Curtis Maloney wrote:
[snip]
> > Bill,
> >
> > Whilst the structures you've described are very effective, your
> > example of libc.org required one thing in particular that I'm not sure is
> > available: prior knowledge of which sections will be
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 th
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 reques
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
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)
>> undesirab
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
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 fo
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
>> improv
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
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.
> >
> > Personal
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
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 s
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) comm
Toby Dickenson wrote:
>
> 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 so
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 poo
Toby Dickenson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:12:33 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Roman Milner 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
> >> have b
18 matches
Mail list logo
