trafficserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ICP^2
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:46:40 GMT
I don't know if the docs are clear, but clustering is superior to ICP in every way. That is
one reason why no one has cared for ICP I think. The main reason for us to get ICP working
is for interoperability with other ICP caches (e.g. Squid).

Also, ICP is a flawed protocol, a better option is for us to implement HTCP, which Squid also
supports.

cheers,

-- Leif 

On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:41 AM, "Henry C." <henka@cityweb.co.za> wrote:

> On Tue, October 18, 2011 09:24, ming.zym@gmail.com wrote:
>> 在 2011-10-18二的 08:43 +0200,Henry C.写道:
>>> On Tue, October 18, 2011 04:46, ming.zym@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Only once the down node
>>> was brought back up did things become snappy again.
>> there should be no issue when one cluster member down, it will discover the
>> change and rehash the contents to the left nodes in cluster. the timeout or
>> heatbeat checking will be <10s. after that, it will be stable as before.
> 
> Thanks, you were right - this had to do with the linux virtual server and it's
> persistence setting on the directors.
> 

Mime
View raw message