|
Roberto Nibali wrote:
>
> Hello Melcolm,
>
> Malcolm Cowe wrote:
> >
> > I saw this on freshmeat and found it quite interesting. The approach
> > towards persistence is something that perhaps LVS could learn from.
>
> Forgive my ignorance: But what exactly is missing in the LVS persistency
> approach?
No idea, I don't use the persistence features in my LVS setup =). And
before you start with the flaming, I was simply pointing out a similar,
less ambitious project which claims to have a new solution, superior to
plain RR and a new way to establish persistence. I have no idea about
the limitations and advantages of Pen over LVS, since I have not had the
opportunity to try it out, and have at this time no requirement for
persistent connections (my cluster just needs high timeout values on the
connections -- is there any way to make the connections never timeout?
=]).
I submitted this URL with the view that somebody with expertise with
load-balancing and persistence might be able to make a judgement on
whether or not this implementation has merit and might prove useful to
the LVS development effort. I am aware, from the contents of this
mailing list, that there are a number of significant obstacles with the
provision of a load-balanced service, which has necessitated the
development of a persistent connection model, and that this model has
its own difficulties (cf. the AOL problems).
I mean no offence. I mean no disrespect to the impressive achievements
of the LVS developers. I think LVS is great, and cannot wait for the
production version of my X11 application cluster to come online later
this month.
Regards,
--
Malcolm Cowe.
IT | Technical Computing, Telephone: +44 131 331 6466
Agilent Technologies Ltd. Telnet: 313-3466
|
