OK. I agree that doing it in hardware is more expensive (as you have no choice but to involve a vendor), but doing it in software is relatively easy; high-performance servers that can act as intermediaries are getting pretty common, and pretty performant. Cheers, On 17/09/2008, at 9:25 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> But I agree that you might be able to use existing URL-based front- >>> end >>> load-balancing kit, and that might reduce the cost of implementation >>> substantially. >> >> Is there a hidden assumption there that this is done in hardware? > > No. By "kit" I mean readily available hardware and/or software, which > does URL-based affinity HTTP request forwarding for load balancing. > > -- Jamie -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.comReceived on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 22:38:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:33 GMT