Andre Garzia wrote:
Alex,
are trying to save bandwidth? oops, I've missed that part, I though he
was afraid the server would enter DoS or something. I agree that using
a balancer will do absolutelly nothing about bandwidth costs or usage,
and yes, you're right about pound getting all the requests before
distributing them.
I was trying to save bandwidth, but that was based purely on the mention
in the original email that he'd like to find a "less 'badnwidth
wasteful' way ..." I suspect that the scheme sims has already
implemented should reduce the concern about bandwidth to being much less
important than server load.
So what about transfering some balance logic into the client
application. It could first download a simple text file with a list of
available servers and with each request go round-robin them. This will
not save bandwidth (I don't know how to do that) but would help
distributing things among a pool if the traffic gets high. The file
could have the ip of the server and some priority or something like
that, so in case of timeouts and some little math, things could be
worked out.
That sounds like a very good idea - especially helpful for when there is
an update.
As for saving bandwidth, why not use GZip encoding for the transfers,
it saves some bytes.
Yep. And it's probably not essential to *reduce* bandwidth, merely to
distribute it well enough, so if the server pool is distributed (i.e. on
multiple ISPs rather than all on the same site) then client-side load
balancing should get us there. And if all else fails, and they are
wildly successful, then presumably they'll be making enough money to
just pay Akamai or Edgecast to handle it for them :-)
-- Alex.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
