On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:03:08AM +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Thursday 06 March 2003 19.04, Ard van Breemen wrote:
> > I can only think of one reason not to do it, and that is the
> > failure of one of the caches. A cache fail means that other
> > caches will do a direct, instead of using a second-in-line cache.
> > That means the site will probably get the same request about
> > (nr of caches) times instead of a single time.
> > For some sites that is a real no-go.
>
> Which is why I mentioned the CARP algorithm as it already deals with
> this.. if one member of the farm dies the content for which this
> member was denoted master will be redistributed evenly (according to
> assigned weights) among the other caches..
Hmmm, yes, this will be the new configuration. Thanks!
Unfortunately I am not the one that will work on it :-(...
--
program signature;
begin { telegraaf.com
} writeln("<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SMA-IS | Goatse don't get viruses");
end
.
