- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:36:48 +1000
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Brian McBarron <bpm@google.com>, <gears-eng@googlegroups.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 22:38:16 UTC