On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 09:19:04PM -0500, Thomas A. Lowery wrote:
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 04:19:13PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:10:09PM -0800, Perrin Harkins wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
You could have a set of apache servers that are 'pure' DBI proxy servers.
What I really dislike on this discussion is, that it mixes
two topics that are, IMO, really different:
- Using a pool of database connections from an application,
typically a threaded application.
- Accessing a database connection which really lives on
another machine via some sort
Tim Bunce wrote:
You could have a set of apache servers that are 'pure' DBI proxy servers.
That is, they POST requests containing SQL (for prepare_cached) plus
bind parameter values and return responses containing the results.
Basically I'm proposing that apache be used as an alternative
At 01:01 PM 10/30/2000 -0600, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
According to Gunther Birznieks:
I guess part of the question is what is meant by "balanced" with regard to
the non-apache back-end servers that was mentioned?
I'd be very happy with either a weighted round-robin or a least-connections
-Original Message-
From: G.W. Haywood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 6:37 AM
To: Gunther Birznieks
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Connection Pooling / TP Monitor
Hi guys,
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
At 09:24 AM 10/29/00
According to Gunther Birznieks:
I guess part of the question is what is meant by "balanced" with regard to
the non-apache back-end servers that was mentioned?
I'd be very happy with either a weighted round-robin or a least-connections
choice. When the numbers get to the point where it
I guess part of the question is what is meant by "balanced" with regard to
the non-apache back-end servers that was mentioned?
I am also concerned that the original question brings up the notion of
failover. mod_backhand is not a failover solution. Backhand does have some
facilities to do
Hi guys,
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
At 09:24 AM 10/29/00 +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Les Mikesell wrote:
Load balncing, failover, etc.
Really useful stuff guys, how about when you write messages like this
putting in some (full) URIs for reference?
Gunther Birznieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am also concerned that the original question brings up the notion of
failover. mod_backhand is not a failover solution. Backhand does have some
facilities to do some failover (eg ByAge weeding) but it's not failover in
the traditional sense.
At 12:21 PM 10/29/00 +, David Hodgkinson wrote:
Gunther Birznieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am also concerned that the original question brings up the notion of
failover. mod_backhand is not a failover solution. Backhand does have some
facilities to do some failover (eg ByAge
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is there any way to tie proxy requests mapped by mod_rewrite to
a balanced set of servers through mod_backhand (or anything
similar)?Also, can mod_backhand (or any alternative) work
with non-apache back end servers?I'm really looking for a way
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Sergeant" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
To redirect incoming url's that require database work to mod_perl
'heavy'
servers? Just like a smarter and more dynamic mod_rewrite? Yes?
Yes basically, except its not a redirect. mod_backhand can use keep-alives
to
"Tim" == Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim You could have a set of apache servers that are 'pure' DBI proxy
Tim servers. That is, they POST requests containing SQL (for
Tim prepare_cached) plus bind parameter values and return responses
Tim containing the results.
Tim Basically I'm
On 27 Oct 2000, (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
"Tim" == Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim You could have a set of apache servers that are 'pure' DBI proxy
Tim servers. That is, they POST requests containing SQL (for
Tim prepare_cached) plus bind parameter values and return responses
;Matt Sergeant" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Tim Bunce" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Jeff Horn" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: Connection Pooling / TP Monitor
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim Bunce wrote
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jeff Horn wrote:
The only way I really see this working is in a threading environment. First
of all, for some databases database connections don't survive forking
(Oracle is the notable example here). Also, even if we could get forking to
work, we would still get the
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Jeff Horn wrote:
However, I am also aware of a _major_ ISP that implements their email
system using a _major_ RDBMS that has had problems that are best
solved
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:26:44PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Or, here's an odd thought that just crossed my mind...
You could have a set of apache servers that are 'pure' DBI proxy servers.
That is, they POST requests containing SQL (for prepare_cached) plus
bind parameter values
At 03:41 PM 10/27/00 +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On 27 Oct 2000, (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
"Tim" == Tim Bunce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim You could have a set of apache servers that are 'pure' DBI proxy
Tim servers. That is, they POST requests containing SQL (for
Tim
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tim Bunce wrote:
Sounds like just a CORBA/RPC type thing. Wouldn't you be better off using
CORBA::ORBit?
Maybe. I dunno. I don't actually need this stuff, I just want there to
be a solution out there for those that do. I'm waving my hands around
and pointing in
I would second that. We've done this using SOAP. We have a DataSource::SOAP
driver that acts as a lightweight interface to a Jakarta TomCat server for
the DB stuff. We get the benefits of Perl on the front-end and Java DB
Connection pooling logic/proxying on the middle tier.
Of course I guess
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Jeff Horn wrote:
However, I am also aware of a _major_ ISP that implements their email
system using a _major_ RDBMS that has had problems that are best
solved via connection pooling. Essentially, the time it takes them to
search through all the cached connections is
First let me say that I'm aware that this topic
comes up with some frequency on the mod_perl and DBI-users list. I am
aware of posts like this one:
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
which argue against the necessity of pooling.
However, I am also aware of a _major_ ISP that
implements their email
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:09:47PM -0500, Jeff Horn wrote:
I basically want to do what the big TP monitors (Tuxedo/Encina/CICS) do with respect
to condensing connections to a database, but I'm not in need of features like
two-phase commit, cross database joins, heterogeneous database
24 matches
Mail list logo
