W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: multi-host virtual sites for HTTP 1.2

From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: "David W. Morris" <dwm@shell.portal.com>, http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960710060459.22482C-100000@ns.viet.net>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1076
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> Sounds like the URN problem all over again.  For example, see
>   http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-ietf-uri-roy-urn-urc-00.txt
> and note the similarities.  I am not opposed to fixing that problem,
> but I don't consider single-site performance to be a concern.
> I wouldn't try to solve it in an IETF working group, regardless.

I agree with this. It isn't a HTTP issue but an implementation issue.  I
can think of a half dozen solutions for the 'mono-server overload' problem
off the top off my head. None of the solutions require changing HTTP -
only local or DNS configurations. In it simplest form, you could just use
redirects to bounce people to the 'nearest' or the 'least loaded' server
automatically (although simple random distribution probably would work
quite well for load balancing - *especially* on the big sites.). 

Benjamin Franz
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 06:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC