On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 14:02 -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: > On 7/31/06, Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote: > > > Guy Hulbert wrote: > > > > That's the ultimate case, after all :-) > > > > > > Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at > > > stuff. > > > > The point of contention was scalability ... from a human point of view <snip> > > Oh please, 99.9999% of users have nowhere near the scalability > constraints that google operates under. Are you saying that because > some do we shouldn't provide solutions that work for the rest? > > -garrett
Nope. Graham asserted that mod_backhand was sufficiently scalable ... which I inferred to mean sufficiently scalable to make a router-based solution unnecessary. For practical use, it seems to be the best solution available for a small-scale site. The commercial solutions do not seem to have changed since 1997 ... it is a more disappointing that the linux-router project does not seem to have come far enough yet to solve this problem "properly". At least it did not turn up obviously in the responses to 'google: mod_backhand scalable". -- --gh
