Rainer; at first, thanks for your hints and getting my view on the world set straight again. ;)
[Rainer Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @ Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:32:59 +0100] > But: with stickyness (different jvmRoutes and a session sticky load > balancer) you only rely on the correctness of the replication when a > node actually fails. Since replication takes a little time and is > very difficult to implement, that's the better strategy. This seems reasonable. However, in terms of load balancing, I wonder whether there are any benchmark / comparisons on that: - Using stickiness, I ensure each request of a session to run on the host the session initially was started upon. This way, the "session" is the most fine-grained way I can provide load balancing, but I possibly don't have to spend that much (development, runtime) resources in order to ensure session replication is always correct. - Not using stickiness, and judging from my environment, I see that I can do load balancing on a per-request base, which seems to be a way more fine-grained approach especially in certain "imaginary worst-case" situations (given that the duration of sessions can drastically vary). But, however, this way indeed I do have to take at least runtime resources for session replication into consideration. Is there a meaningful approach to comparing these setups in terms of worst-case / average-case performance, or is it simply plain "trial-and-error" (and possibly some lambda-probe watching)? Thanks and bye, Kristian -- Kristian Rink * http://zimmer428.net * http://flickr.com/photos/z428/ jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * icq: 48874445 * fon: ++49 176 2447 2771 "One dreaming alone, it will be only a dream; many dreaming together is the beginning of a new reality." (Hundertwasser) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
