Chris, I guess what I was thinking about with load balancing is that I might have two Tomcat servers ready to process enrollments. I need some traffic controller in front of them to manage incoming traffic so they don't get swamped and unable to process enrollments already in progress.
What you suggested initially was that one system be the traffic controller and depending on how busy the enrollment server is, either send users to it or redirect them to a static 'busy' page elsewhere. How were you thinking this communication between the traffic controller and enrollment server would work? I might be misunderstanding your suggestion: 'Why not skip the extra step of determining the state on the fly and just send the user to another server (permanently)?' If I don't include the step of checking state on the fly, don't I run the risk of the enrollment server being flooded and preventing enrollments in progress from completing? Thanks, Clinton -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:29 AM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: Keeping busy site responsive -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Clinton, Parham, Clinton wrote: > Maybe Christopher is on the right track where some sort of load balancer > is the best solution. One that's smart enough to allow established > sessions through and maybe redirect new ones while the server is at peak > load. This would avoid Tomcat from having to deal with traffic it cannot > handle/trying to issue redirects. > > Does anyone have any experience/recommendations setting something like > this up? Len hinted at F5 - not sure we can afford that... Len: which F5 > and how much?? I don't think you need special lb hardware. Just use two machines (or even two TC instances on the same machine) and have one redirect users to the other. A single switch (the redirect) is all you require. Adding load balancing into the equation will just introduce new problems. Also, you're not trying to balance load. You're trying to send users in different states to different places. Why not skip the extra step of determining the state on the fly and just send the user to another server (permanently)? - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGg7eg9CaO5/Lv0PARAqZ8AJ0at0W/PPpmt0Hnm/9X18uzusQNWACfTy6S 2MsmHQWD43CBs1HgHJk95lk= =x7DV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
