Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18357 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2005 14:44:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jan 2005 14:44:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 81793 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2005 14:44:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 81711 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2005 14:44:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 81666 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jan 2005 14:44:07 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from jimsys.jaguNET.com (HELO jimsys.jaguNET.com) (209.133.199.10) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:44:04 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jimsys.jaguNET.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CB43FFCAA for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:44:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <41E39A66.3070700@algroup.co.uk> References: <9DB662D8-60E5-11D9-8621-000393D76AB8@jaguNET.com> <41E06224.7080802@algroup.co.uk> <27DF1E30C32729EB0848163C@st-augustin.ics.uci.edu> <41E39A66.3070700@algroup.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <3B3D5601-63DF-11D9-BAC6-000393D76AB8@jaguNET.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: Working on some load balancing methods Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:44:00 -0500 To: dev@httpd.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Jan 11, 2005, at 4:20 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> --On Saturday, January 8, 2005 10:43 PM +0000 Ben Laurie >> wrote: >>> Errr... mod_backhand? >> mod_backhand doesn't support Apache 2.x: >> > > Port it? > I think that we can come much further along with extending the lb capability in proxy... For more sophisticated and demanding environments, an external lb mechanism is likely used. So my pers. pref would be to see what can be done in proxy before seeing if mod_backhand even needs to be ported. I don't think that the web server should need to do everything :)