Re: Re : serveriron predictor
"Reynald Mahinay" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.load-balancing.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Surya and Rubens, You both have a good point. In relation, I look-up the net and found serveriron can do something like response-time + weighted servers. It's like combining the two predictor you guys have suggested. Have you tried that setup before? Regards, Reynald -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:57 PM To: Load Balancing Mailing List Subject: Re: [load balancing] Re : serveriron predictor > least-conn > least-local-conn > least-local-sess > local-weighted > response-time > round-robin > weighted I suggest the weighted predictors. Heavy loads are prone to cause instability with response-time or least-conn, with the server that was most responsive been killed by the next wave of connection setups that will all go to that server. Unless the balancer can override this behavior with a max new connection per second rate, I advise to use static balancing, weighted by the effective http power(measured with ab or your favorite http load tool), not simple CPU clock math. Rubens _______________________________________________ lb-l mailing list [email protected] http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki _______________________________________________ lb-l mailing list [email protected] http://vegan.net/mailman/listinfo/lb-l Searchable Archive: http://vegan.net/lb/archive http://lbdigest.com Load Balancing Digest http://lbwiki.com Load Balancing Wiki