Forwarding Andrew's message here, since it was accidentally not sent to the list:
Andrew said: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 03:08:01AM -0800, [email protected] wrote 1.7K bytes in 0 > lines about: > : For this reason we started wondering whether DNS-round-robin-like > : scalability is actually worth such trouble. AFAIK most big websites > : use DNS round-robin, but is it necessary? What about application-layer > : solutions like HAProxy? Do application-layer load balancing solutions > : exist for other (stateful) protocols (IRC, XMPP, etc.)? > > In my experience in running large websites and services, we didn't use > DNS round-robin. If large sites do it themselves, versus outsourcing it > to a content delivery network, they look into anycast, geoip-based proxy > servers, or load balancing proxy servers (3DNS/BigIP, NetScalar, etc) > DNS round-robin is for smaller websites which want to simply spread the > load across redundant servers--this is what tor does now. > > If scaling hidden services is going to be a large challenge and consume > a lot of time, it sounds like making HS work more reliably and with > stronger crypto is a better return on effort. The simple answer for > scaling has been to copy around the private/public keys and host the > same HS descriptors on multiple machines. I'm not sure we have seen a > popular enough hidden service to warrant the need for massive scaling now. > > Maybe changing HAProxy to support .onion links is a fine option too. _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
