John Madden wrote:
If using NFS as the session store, you don't even have to get this specific -- one user using "his" session from two servers simultaneously will eventually see problems.
Isn't that an argument not to use LVS persistence?
Using persistence is a shield against this sort of problem. It allows changes to be sync'd NFS-wise and to ensure that "the previous web server" isn't doing anything else with the session file. All user activity within the persistence timeout is bound to "the previous web server" unless that server goes away.
Then how would our mystery user be accessing two different web servers in the first place per the example above? If she somehow did get two requests to go thru two different servers as is suggested, it seems like we are back to talking about how PHP achieves its locking (without more information or hacks, seems like the SQL backend might be the safest choice).
------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans! Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix -- squirrelmail-users mailing list Posting Guidelines: http://squirrelmail.org/wiki/wiki.php?MailingListPostingGuidelines List Address: [email protected] List Archives: http://news.gmane.org/thread.php?group=gmane.mail.squirrelmail.user List Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=2995 List Info: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squirrelmail-users
