httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: mod_proxy / mod_proxy_balancer
Date Wed, 06 May 2009 11:57:02 GMT
Rainer Jung wrote:
>> An ability to balance based on new sessions with an idle time out on
>> such sessions would be close enough to reality in cases where sessions
>> expire rather than being explicitly invalidated (e.g. by a logout).
>>     
> But then we end up in a stateful situation. This is a serious design
> decision. If we want to track idleness for sessions, we need to track a
> list of sessions (session ids) the balancer has seen. This makes things
> much more complex. Combined with the non-ability to track logouts and
> the errors coming in form a global situation (more than one Apache
> instance), I think it will be more of a problem than a solution.
>   
The more I think about this the more I agree.

 From the start I preferred the session/health query to the back-end 
with a time-to-live, on further consideration I *greatly* prefer this 
approach.
>> Of course that redoes what a servlet engine would be doing and does so
>> with lower fidelity.  An ability to ask a backend for its current
>> session count and load balance new requests on that basis would be
>> really helpful.
>>     
> Seems much nicer.
>   
Agreed.
>> Actually this could and should be generalized beyond active sessions to
>> a back-end health metric.  Each backend could compute and respond with a
>> relative measure of busyness/health and respond and the load balancer
>> could then balance new (session-less) requests to the least busy / most
>> healthy backend.  This would seem to be *huge* step forward in load
>> balancing capability/fidelity.
>>
>> It's my understanding that mod_cluster is pursuing just this sort of
>> thing to some degree -- but currently only works for JBoss backends.
>>     
> Yes, I think the counter/aging discussion is for the baseline, i.e. when
> we do not have any information channel to or from the backend nodes.
>
> As soon as mod_cluster comes into play, we can use more up-to-date real
> data and only need to decide how to interprete it and how to interpolate
> during the update interval.
>   
Should general support for a query URL be provided in 
mod_proxy_balancer?  Or should this be left to mod_cluster?  Does 
mod_cluster provide yet another approach top to bottom (separate than 
mod_jk and mod_proxy/mod_proxy_ajp)?  It would seem nice to me if mod_jk 
and/or mod_proxy_balancer could do health checks, but you have to draw 
the line somewhere on growing any given module and if mod_jk and 
mod_proxy_balancer are not going in that direction at some point 
mod_cluster may be in my future.

--
Jess Holle


Mime
View raw message