On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +0000, JuanE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did not think of that. Good suggestion. > > It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down > server out of the rotation relatively quickly. If not, then you'll waste > considerable time polling the busy server (and consequently having your > connections rejected by tcpserver) while all other servers are breezing at > 50% load. That may be hard to do. A lot of places may have the list of IP addresses cached and they typically expire over a time longer than a server will be down.
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods JuanE
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods James Raftery
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods Michael T. Babcock
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods JuanE
- RE: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods Austad, Jay
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods Michael T. Babcock
- RE: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods Austad, Jay
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods JuanE
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c m... JuanE
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc... Bruno Wolff III
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-... David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c m... Michael T. Babcock
- Re: updated load balancing qmail-qmqpc.c mods Michael T. Babcock