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
> 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 -