httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: The Case for a Universal Web Server Load Value
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:48:00 GMT

On Nov 13, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote:

> As to what that represents, that must surely depend on the bottlenecks
> in a particular system.  A backend doing heavy number-crunching and
> one doing lots of complex SQL queries have different loads, and a
> good load measure for one may be meaningless if applied to the other.
> How would a 'universal' measure reflect that kind of difference?
> 
> Where I think you could usefully focus is on standardising a protocol
> for backends to communicate loads to balancers.  That then becomes
> something we can implement in an lb method module in HTTPD.
> But it has to be left to individual backend systems exactly how they
> measure their own loads.

Yeah, and that can be "tricky" because it opens it up to
becoming a marketing tool, rather than a useful load balancing
tool. That's why I like a simple 0.0-1.0 scale at a minimum.

Also, let's not forget that, at least which httpd, we also have
load-factors and so we can weigh even what's returned by the
backend. So even if they skew the results, we can always
adjust for the real world.

Mime
View raw message