> ons 2010-04-14 klockan 16:00 +0000 skrev Poul-Henning Kamp: > In message <[email protected]>, Niklas > Norber > g writes: > > >So I also vote for keeping this as a documented configuration rather > >than a built-in feature. Unless the planned sticky load balancing will > >have something above the rudimentary. > > Check the "hash" and "client" directors in 2.1, depending on what > you want to be "sticky" based on (object or client) >
Thanks (but...), Does the hash director balance differently, in the big picture, than the already existing random director? The client director comes close to my intended setup but the problem with balancing on client ip is, as have been mentioned before, that lots of clients (real users behind their browsers) can share the same ip-adress. I worked with a site where the end users were schools and 8.30 the traffic always got high and the ip-adresses were too few to balance on, so we did it in the hardware load balancer on level 7 (i.e. with a cookie). As I see it there are only two cases: * Either we want to have sticky (ip or cookie) for the traffic that has uses session cookies, because in this case it is costful to hit the wrong backend (session redundancy costs performance (and setup hours). or * It's stateless traffic and therefor it can be distributed randomly. In this case preferably with weights (if the backends differ) and with traffic memory according to: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy_balancer.html#traffic It is of course good if they can be combined as one for example easily can do with VCL in Varnish. As I can figure these two covers all, or? So the question is, are there any plans for any traffic based director? :) Best Regards Niklas Norberg _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
