httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm>
Subject Re: The Case for a Universal Web Server Load Value
Date Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:17:00 GMT
On 12 Nov 2012, at 5:04 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>   http://www.jimjag.com/imo/index.php?/archives/248-The-Case-for-a-Universal-Web-Server-Load-Value.html

+1 to the idea of a header, it is simple and unobtrusive, and doesn't give you any security
headaches that any out-of-band header would give you.

As to the format of the header, perhaps a application/x-www-form-urlencoded string of some
kind? It allows us to be extensible if we need to be. For example:

X-Server-Load: av1=5.76&av5=0.44&av15=0.10

or

X-Server-Load: av1=5.76&av5=0.44&av15=0.10&going-offline-in=22

(You get the idea)

If a load balancer wants to query a server that might be offline, it might send an OPTIONS
request and if the X-Server-Load permits, the load balancer might ramp that server back up
again.

Regards,
Graham
--


Mime
View raw message