Re: Session and Multi Server Architecture
| From: | Stut | Date: | Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:55:51 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Session and Multi Server Architecture | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-269130@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Per Jessen wrote:
mike wrote:Based on what? I'm currently looking at replacing a file-based cache with memcached and I'm interested in all justified opinions.Because you've chosen another option - memcached presumably - which is more expensive over all. (IMHO).Check out persistency in LVS for instance: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/docs/persistence.htmli know persistence handling is an option in LVS, but i haven't seen the need to use it. i use LVS right now without even bothering with any of that.
Facebook. Digg. LiveJournal. That enough scalability proof for ya? If not there are plenty more where those came from. -Stut -- http://stut.net/besides, if you are sticking a user on the same server, what happens when that server dies?On the next request, LVS will know not to try that server, and the user will move to another one. Obviously the session-context will die, but is that really a big deal? How often does one of your servers die? Sure, if you've got 10,000 in a cluster, you'll have fans and harddisks pop every so often, but I have my doubts about memcached scaling to that level (please correct me if I'm wrong here, I have _no_ experience with memcached).