httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guy Hulbert <>
Subject Re: load balancer "cluster" set
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:39:56 GMT

I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis.  So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.

If the solution is a p2p one then it might be somewhat interesting.
Otherwise, it just seems (to me) to be re-inventing the wheel ...
potentially very badly.

Adding load-balancing/clustering to software projects seems to be
popular (i know of others :-) lately ... it seems like the idea that
every end-user application adds features until it can do email.

On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 18:26 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:16 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
> >> At the network layer, your metrics are pretty much "volume of data" or
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Routers can look at anything in the packets which is not encrypted.
> > They can also measure server response (by packet stats) directly or via
> > SNMP.  There are all sorts of things that *cannot* be done on the server
> > without introducing all sorts of p2p communications requirements.
> I'm sure they can. This doesn't make them the right solution for all cases.
> In a multi tier architecture, you already have front end servers
> implementing URL strategies, common logging, all sorts of other things.

The 1997 system I referenced was already a multi-tier architecture.  The
integration group was implementing systems on large world-wide private

> Adding an extra router layer to handle load balancing, when your already
> existing frontend can do this job is not only extra cost, but extra
> complexity and an additional point of failure.

Without knowing the specific network involved this is just wanking.

The implementation of the IBM software solution software solution I
described previously required 4 PCs precisely because of the problem of
redundancy, monitoring and failover.  The PCs were paired with a
heartbeat running on loop-back interfaces.

Do you know anyone running an apache service over the internet without a
router somewhere?  I doubt that IP via carrier pigeon has sufficient

My only interest in this is you are putting all the additional
complexity into the Apache server.

> Regards,
> Graham
> --


View raw message