On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:07:30 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Toby Dickenson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> 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.
DNS scales up to one machine per section, but a typical budget doesnt.
Fortunately it doesnt need too. Even if we have 10000's of sections, I
would expect only 10's to be active over a period of a few minutes.
Another way of looking at the issue is that it is similar to using
in-memory Sessions. You have to ensure that each user's requests are
routed to the machine that holds their session. The main difference is
that it is a performance, not correctness issue.
I don't want to think about handling Sessions using DNS and one
machine per user ;-)
>> >EddieWare does do 'intellgient' caching
>> eddieware is on my list of option to try out next month... Ill keep
>> you posted
Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -