Toby Dickenson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I might be reading more into his words than was intended, but I think
> >> this demonstrates the problem. Distributing multiple requests for one
> >> section across multiple servers is (what I consider to be)
> >> undesirable.
> >
> >You can actually do it either way. Curtis (AIUI) complained that the
> >method described meant your site depended upon each of th esection's
> >servers being up, that there was no redundancy. So I described a way of
> >doing it with redundancy.
> What you described doesn't scale up to having 1000's of sections
> (which I was assuming, and I think Curtis was too).  If this isn't a
> problem, then your solution is great.

I don't understand why you think it doesn't. DNS has clearly
demonstrated the ability to handle 'thousands', and the entire
scalability of a cluster is the addition of machines. You appear to be
desirous of having a machine handle a section. Thus, for thousands of
sections, you have thousands of machines. Again, with a ZEO clusters the
bottleneck/SPOF would be the ZSS, but that _could_ be worked aorund, and
has nothing to do with 'sections' of a website. 

Beyond that, your bottleneck would be networking. Whether yoour
individual BE servers responded directly to the web browser, or whether
they were channeled through a single/multiple FrontEnd servers. The
decision to implement a BE->Client vs. a BE->FE->Client topology has not
been discussed, as it is irrelevent to the discussion.

In fact, come to think of it, I have noticed many sites redirect a
/foo/bar usr to a or

> >EddieWare does do 'intellgient' caching
> eddieware is on my list of option to try out next month... Ill keep
> you posted


Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy,
and have the root password.

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to