httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mathieu CARBONNEAUX <i...@ch2o.info>
Subject Re: [info@ch2o.info] Re: mod_proxy_balancer/mod_proxy_ajp TODO
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:45:49 GMT
you must have the possibility to add a wheight to each backend to moderate the load (like nortel
alteon)... no?
  _____  

From: Mladen Turk [mailto:mturk@apache.org]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:02:44 +0200
Subject: [info@ch2o.info] Re: mod_proxy_balancer/mod_proxy_ajp TODO

Henri Gomez wrote:
> Important point in load balancing will be to collect CPU load (job
> load) from the remote.
> We often make the mistake to split requests between servers as if it
> cost the same CPU power (or cpu load) for each of them, but in Java /
> J2EE some requests could be more CPU/IO/DB consuming than others.
>

Well, I'm not sure that having the CPU load would mean something.
For example you might have P3/1GHz and P66/100GHz with the
same load (close to 80%), and that info in that case would be
actually misleading. It might help only if your hardware topology
is exactly the same for all backend servers.

The bussines method OTOH will favor the 100GHz box over 1GHz one,
thus giving more sense. Even with the same hardware topology,
it is presumable that the shorter reply timeout would mean less
CPU cycles used.

Regards,
Mladen.
  
Mime
View raw message