Geoff wrote:
>>My worry is that you'll end up with something like ZODB with ZEO if you
want
a SQL session store to be flexible enough to store any Python object that
can
be pickled (like the current SessionStores) but avoid concurrency problems.
<<
I'm being very simple minded. I just pickle ea
On Wednesday February 20, 2002 10:24 pm, Edmund Lian wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> >>A SQL SessionStore would also need the same sort of locking, but maybe it
>
> could be smarter since it doesn't necessarily have to store all values in
> one
> big pickle. But still, that means that servlet code can no lon
Geoff,
>>A SQL SessionStore would also need the same sort of locking, but maybe it
could be smarter since it doesn't necessarily have to store all values in
one
big pickle. But still, that means that servlet code can no longer
simply access sessions as though they are a simple Python dictionar
> > When we first started up they bought a hardware load balancer even
> > though I told them not as we didn't have any traffic yet and may
never.
> > It cost $15k. Two years later when I went to use it, I see that for
> > another $5k they could have bought the better model that used
cookies to
>
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> When we first started up they bought a hardware load balancer even
> though I told them not as we didn't have any traffic yet and may never.
> It cost $15k. Two years later when I went to use it, I see that for
> another $5k they could have bought the b
On Wednesday February 20, 2002 01:48 am, Edmund Lian wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
> >>But it seems to me that in general, you'd have to lock the row for the
>
> entire duration of the servlet's processing. What if a user accesses a
> servlet that takes 20 seconds to process, then in a different window o
Geoff wrote:
>>But it seems to me that in general, you'd have to lock the row for the
entire duration of the servlet's processing. What if a user accesses a
servlet that takes 20 seconds to process, then in a different window or
frame tries to access a servlet that only takes 1/10 of a second t
Edmund Lian wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
>
> >>Love, Jay wrote:
> > You need to store the sessions in an SQL server.
> > I think there is an SQL sessionstore already written. If
> > not, it wouldn't
> > be difficult at all.
>
> You can run into trouble if 2 servlets are executing
> simultaneously. I
> I had heard at one point that there are load balancers that can keep
> redirecting to the same machine based on a cookie (eg, _SID_). But
> you'd have to investigate and you'd have to purchase one.
When we first started up they bought a hardware load balancer even
though I told them not as we d
On Tuesday February 19, 2002 01:38 am, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> I had heard at one point that there are load balancers that can keep
> redirecting to the same machine based on a cookie (eg, _SID_). But
> you'd have to investigate and you'd have to purchase one.
>
> On a whim, I searched Google fo
On Monday 18 February 2002 09:34 am, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Most of our websites use sessions to store a variable like
> loggedInUserID to track who is logged in. To handle the load from
> advertising campaigns, I've setup two computers with Apache and
> Webkit running on each. I then use round r
Geoff wrote:
>>Love, Jay wrote:
> You need to store the sessions in an SQL server.
> I think there is an SQL sessionstore already written. If
> not, it wouldn't
> be difficult at all.
You can run into trouble if 2 servlets are executing simultaneously. If
they both make changes to the session
27;; Ian Bicking; Jeff Johnson
> > Cc: 'Webware Discuss'
> > Subject: RE: [Webware-discuss] clustered webservers?
> >
> >
> > Love, Jay wrote:
> > > I don't think this addresses session affinity (I think that's
> > > the co
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Ian Bicking; Jeff Johnson
> Cc: 'Webware Discuss'
> Subject: RE: [Webware-discuss] clustered webservers?
>
>
> Love, Jay wrote:
> > I don't think this addresses session affinity (I think that's
> > the correct
>
Love, Jay wrote:
> I don't think this addresses session affinity (I think that's
> the correct
> term). It just does a roundrobin from a central webserver to multiple
> appservers.
Sure it does. If you redirect from www.whatever to www1.whatever, then the
rest of the session will use www1.what
Ian Bicking wrote:
> This was discussed on the mailing list a while back -- "load
> balancing"
> or something was the subject.
>
> With your current setup, you'll do better to have a third server (or
> dual use for one of your current servers), and have it redirect people
> round-robin-style to
TED]; 'Ian Bicking'
> Cc: 'Webware Discuss'
> Subject: RE: [Webware-discuss] clustered webservers?
>
>
> > I don't think this addresses session affinity (I think that's the
> correct
> > term). It just does a roundrobin from a central webse
Love, Jay wrote:
> You need to store the sessions in an SQL server.
> I think there is an SQL sessionstore already written. If
> not, it wouldn't
> be difficult at all.
You can run into trouble if 2 servlets are executing simultaneously. If
they both make changes to the session, one of the se
#x27;Ian Bicking'
> Cc: 'Webware Discuss'
> Subject: RE: [Webware-discuss] clustered webservers?
>
>
> > I don't think this addresses session affinity (I think that's the
> correct
> > term). It just does a roundrobin from a central webserver
&
> I don't think this addresses session affinity (I think that's the
correct
> term). It just does a roundrobin from a central webserver to multiple
> appservers.
>
> If you don't want to mess with SQL, just store all the sessions in an
NFS
> directory, so both appservers can get at it.
I think
get at it.
Jay
> -Original Message-
> From: Tavis Rudd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:48 PM
> To: Ian Bicking; Jeff Johnson
> Cc: 'Webware Discuss'
> Subject: Re: [Webware-discuss] clustered webservers?
>
>
> On Monday 18 February 2002
On Monday 18 February 2002 10:26, Ian Bicking wrote:
> This was discussed on the mailing list a while back -- "load
> balancing" or something was the subject.
>
> With your current setup, you'll do better to have a third server
> (or dual use for one of your current servers), and have it redirect
This was discussed on the mailing list a while back -- "load balancing"
or something was the subject.
With your current setup, you'll do better to have a third server (or
dual use for one of your current servers), and have it redirect people
round-robin-style to www1.whatever, www2.whatever, etc.
You need to store the sessions in an SQL server.
I think there is an SQL sessionstore already written. If not, it wouldn't
be difficult at all.
Jay
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: 'Webware Discuss'
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
