Hello, Yes actually we need it for our reverse proxy. But web servers would also benefit from that, wouldn't they?
Regards, SZ On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Stanislav <stas...@orc.ru> wrote: > Hello, > > Don't you think that reverse-proxy is sufficient for that purposes, with no > need > to modify servers themselves? Failover facilities should be external to > a server, imho, because they may fail if they are embedded into a server > which undergoes a failure. > > Best wishes, > Stanislav Korotky. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fastream Technologies" < > ga...@fastream.com> > To: "ICS support mailing" <twsocket@elists.org> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:29 AM > Subject: [twsocket] Clustering/failover support for ICS > servercomponents--especially Web Server > > > Hello, >> >> I wonder if this is in somebody's to-do list. Don't you see the demand I >> see >> in this? If so, maybe we can collect money similar to what we did for the >> ICS-SSL project which succeeded. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> SubZero >> -- >> To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list >> please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket >> Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be >> >> -- > To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list > please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket > Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be > -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
