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 this such a simple idea that it MUST be good. (o8
> > So much so, in fact, that I've decided to have a crack at writing just
> > such a redirector.  I feel the Zope world (and others, most likely) could
> > benefit from a 'preferential' redirector.
> The way I would do this is have
> section1.contrived-example.com
> section2.contrived-example.com
> section3.contrived-example.com
> with siteAccess, and then each zope would serve it according to it's IP
> (though each "could" serve each site).  Then you can use whatever IP/DNS
> load balancing tool your heart desires.

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 hits.

So, for www.contrived-example.com/dir1  it will first try server1, but if
it's busy (or down) it will try others.  This way, the cache on server1 is
more likely to contain objects relevant to /dir1  and thus have a higher hit
rate, therefore improving performance.

An enforced 'mapping', as you were suggesting, removes ALL redundancy from
the site, but would likely provide even better cache hits.

> a thought,

Have a better one,

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to