Stut wrote: >> Of course, processing power, network capacity and memory are all very >> cheap these days, so it's easy to put on the Microsoft hat and be >> wasteful. > > In my mind you're exchanging traffic over a local network (probably > 1Gbps) for a less resilient load balancing system. By locking users to > particular machines you don't allow for the possibility that you'll > end up with a large number of users on any given server while others > lie idle.
There's no question of locking users to particular machines, nor of uneven distribution. LVS will distribute evenly or according to weights. > Personally I'd always opt for a solution where my hardware > will be utilised as evenly as possible regardless of user patterns. Certainly. > I'll be using memcache as a simple cache. I hate sessions and avoid > them for anything but the most trivial sites. The main sites I work > with no longer use sessions because they add a pointless layer of > complexity to any application that need to scale beyond a single > machine. Well, we have no problem using sessions on our web-cluster (with LVS session persistency). Do you write your apps specifically for use with memcached? I did think of that, but I thought people would prefer not have their apps tied directly to memcached. I guess it's a matter of choice. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
