Re: modproxy load balancer

George Schlossnagle wrote:

> Isn't there ongoing discussion about incorporating mod_backhand into 
> mod_proxy for this?
>
>
> George

Hi George,
Thanks for the reminder. I can't say that I have been paying much 
attention lately, but this discussion goes back quite some time.

I am digging into the doc on mod_backhand  but still don't quite grok 
how backhand works (I am still reading).  It appears to rely on all the 
servers in the cluster being 'backhand aware' (for lack of a better 
term) and that the servers communicate their status to each other via 
UDP. Requiring all the servers in the cluster to be backhand aware 
severly limits the usefulness of mod_backhand.  There would also be 
potential security issues with the ports backhand aware servers use to 
communicate with each other (none that could not be fixed if they even 
exist at all).  Am I missing something important here?

Bill