>> 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).
With persistence, our mystery user *wouldn't* be munging things up, that's the whole point here. And don't assume ACID compliance to be a silver bullet here -- you can still have transactions walking all over each other if your session management isn't coded properly -- it's really no better in this scenario than NFS-stored PHP sessions. John -- John Madden UNIX Systems Engineer Ivy Tech State College [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- 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?id5hix -- 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)95 List Info: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squirrelmail-users
