On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 08:48:14AM +0800, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:31:27PM -0700, John L. Singleton wrote: > >> I'm a little mystified as to the usefulness of this as well. I mean, > >> what does hashing the domain name solve that just balancing back to a > >> bunch of Apache instances with virtual hosting turned on doesn't? Are > >> you saying that you have domains like en.example.com, fr.example.com > >> and you want them all to be sticky to the same backend server when > >> they balance? If that's the case, I could see that being useful if the > >> site in question were doing some sort of expensive per-user asset > >> generation that was being cached on the server. Is this what you are > >> talking about? > > > > There are proxies which can do prefetching, and in this case, it's > > desirable that all requests for a same domain name pass through the > > same cache. > > > > so are you saying haproxy -> cache -> backend? (in which case, you > would be talking more about an ISP, i think? or does anybody here not > running an ISP actually do this (I would be interested to know))
not necessarily, it can also be : customers -> haproxy -> caches -> world Willy
