On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, tony bourke wrote:
> > can this be explained more? the balancer should open http requests, take
> > out the cookies, parse them, and then send certain flags to a persistent
> > real server?
> Cookie-based persistence is where the load balancer reads the cookie
> before handing an HTTP request off to a server. Often times it's required
> that the same server handle an individual user's traffic, such as with a
> web store.
i can't imagine any modern-day application being written requiring this,
but i suppose i can see where it would be necessary. for example, my
employer stores session information in a database accessable from any
web server. i've seen shared filesystems used for this as well. but yeah
when local disks or storing session info in webserver memory comes into
play, i can see how that would be useful.
even beyond that, however, one would hope clients would use http
keep-alive. and even beyond that, one could still use persistence on the
ip level -- it just might not be evenly-balanced in the off chance that
you get x number of hits from people behind the same masquerading/proxy
gateway and little hits from other ips.
so i still hesitate to consider that a priority. depends on
the applications, i suppose. nevertheless, i now see your point.
is aol that bad? aren't the ips per users still geographically dispersed?
do they use web caches that only send requests from a small number of ips?
i have little first-hand experience with a majority of web hits coming
from aol. curious.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 02:09:25 EST