Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev wrote:
ok, there are two very simple memory friendly ways to do sticky load balancing.It's cool to have one less thing to configure, but it seems to me jvmRoute is the most reliable and efficient way of doing stickiness (the cookie way is intrusive, and the IP way is highly inaccurate).
And as a matter of fact, this is how some hardware loadbalancers do it.
1. Set a cookie on the clients machine - no server memory to hold a map
2. If the client doesn't accept cookies, do a simple sticky load balancing based on the IP of the client request. Again, no memory
map needed.
The current jvmRoute addition to JSESSIONID is not really needed, since it doesn't add that much of a benefit over the two options
above. So right then and there, there is one less thing to configure.
Well it seems the discussion advance quickly and on the right direction, a true ASF members colaboration.
I made some benchs yesterday on my laptop between :
- TC 3.3.2/Coyote - Apache 2.0.49 alone (simple html file) - Apache 2.0.49 + jk 1.2.6 + TC 3.3.2/jk2 - Apache 2.0.49 + jk 1.2.6 + 2 * TC 3.3.2/jk2 - Apache 2.0.49 + mod_proxy + TC 3.3.2 (Coyote 1.1).
I'll redo them today on a faster machines since the results where a little too random but the benchs raise some questions :
- I'm using ab (ApacheBench) and wonder if the -k (keep alive) if HTTP keep-alive is really used ?
Why? Remember to run ab on a separate (fast) machine otherwise the results are random ;-)
- Did mod_proxy keep a connection cache ?
It does not close the socket to the proxy when using HTTP/1.1 and "Connection:" is not "close".
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
