W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs

From: Per Buer <perbu@varnish-software.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:30:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOXZevDfCT4Zk=5v=cHhtfsFWYc++en_Y0FL+MCBg1yAASdNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
>
> Ah, but on a big proxy farm setup, the load balancer may orient the second
> request to an new proxy (since the first one is busy). And the origin web site
> may also be part of a cdn, and the second request may not end on the same
> delivery server as the first one

So, if the proxy farm fails to hash incoming requests on source IP or
target URL then this might happen. But either of these methods will
easily help avoid the problem. So, I personally don't think there is
need to further complicate things that are somewhat easy to solve
without making HTTP 2.0 even more complicated.

--
Per Buer
Phone: +47 21 98 92 61 / Mobile: +47 958 39 117 / Skype: per.buer
Varnish makes websites fly!
Whitepapers | Video | Twitter
Received on Monday, 9 April 2012 16:31:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT