Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-54364-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 13742 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2006 16:22:30 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Jul 2006 16:22:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 83399 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2006 16:22:26 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 83130 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2006 16:22:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 83119 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jul 2006 16:22:25 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:22:25 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0
	tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Received: from [206.190.36.79] (HELO smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com)
 (206.190.36.79)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:22:25 -0700
Received: (qmail 21556 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2006 16:22:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cal.cotef.org)
 (gwhulbert@rogers.com@72.140.234.123 with plain)
  by smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2006 16:22:03 -0000
Subject: Re: load balancer "cluster" set
From: Guy Hulbert <gwhulbert@eol.ca>
To: jim@jaguNET.com
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <200607311604.k6VG4qb00712@devsys.jaguNET.com>
References: <200607311604.k6VG4qb00712@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:22:03 -0400
Message-Id: <1154362923.7894.73.camel@cal.cotef.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 12:04 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Nope.  
> > 
> > Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
<snip>
> > But, I suppose, if people want it ...
> > 
> 
> People want to simplify things.

The simple solution is to buy a bigger piece of hardware or outsource
the problem to the relevent experts.

Trying to do meaningful load-balancing within an application will not be
simple.  At the router it is simple.  All the required data is present
in one spot.

Look.  I really don't want to discourage you.  Especially, since it has
been claimed that the work has already been done.

The real danger, I see, is that you try to become all things to all
people when there does not seem to be resources to solve problems which
are very specific to the core application.

-- 
--gh