Thanks Willy. I am precisely using it for caching. I need requests to go to the same nodes for cache hits, but when the node is already swamped I would prefer a cache miss over a 503.
Thanks Sachin On 8/31/13 12:57 PM, "Willy Tarreau" <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: >On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 02:10:50PM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote: >> Thanks Lukas. >> >> Yes, I was hoping to workaround by setting a smaller maxqueue limit and >> queue timeout. >> >> So what other options do we have, I need to: >> 1. Send all requests for a host (mytest.mydomain.com) to one backend as >> long as it can serve. >> 2. If the backend is swamped, it should go to any other backend >>available. > >I'm wondering if we should not try to implement this when the hash type >is set to "consistent". The principle of the consistent hash precisely >is that we want the closest node but we know that sometimes things will >be slightly redistributed (eg: when adding/removing a server in the farm). >So maybe it would make sense to specify that when using consistent hash, >if a server has a maxqueue parameter and this maxqueue is reached, then >look for the closest server. That might be OK with caches as well as the >ones close to each other tend to share a few objects when the farm size >changes. > >What do others think ? > >Willy >
