|
Hello Joe
Good timing ;)
Is there a reason you can't simply tie each Squid to one parent? i.e.
to redraw your diagram, something like this:
> +----------------------------+
> | Internet |
> +----------------------------+
> | | |
> +----------------+ | +-----------+
> | | |
> +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
> | PROXY-PARENT-1 | | PROXY-PARENT-2 | | PROXY-PARENT-3 |
> +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
> | | |
> +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
> | SQUID-PROXY-1 | | SQUID-PROXY-2 | | SQUID-PROXY-3 |
> +---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
> | | |
> +--------------+ | +---------+
> | | |
> +----------------------------+
> | LoadBalancer |
> +----------[ VIP ]-----------+
Ahh, I hope he likes that. This makes a lot more sense.
This will lead to occasional 'hot spots' on one cache and proxy or
another (this is kind of unavoidable with a destination hash based
scheduler), but should generally lead to a pretty good balance most of
the time.
I agree on that.
Cheers,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
|
