John Madden wrote:
>>>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.
OK, what I missed was that I thought you were describing problems you
were having with NFS, but you are saying that once you implemented
15-second LVS persistence that those things went away.
Thanks,
paul
-------------------------------------------------------
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
