Re: Session and Multi Server Architecture

mike wrote: > On 2/11/08, Per Jessen <per@computer.org> wrote: >> Because you've chosen another option - memcached presumably - which >> is more expensive over all. (IMHO). > > mysql (stated above), and i already have a connection open each > page... Ah, so all you need is per-connection persistency. Yep, that is by far the easiest. I use LVS for my mail-server cluster, also per-connection persistency only. >> LVS won't migrate any of your data for you. It'll shift the client >> to an available server, that's all. > > yes i know that. so you're either advocating: > > a) persistence AND central session management, or > b) persistence and not keeping anything important in a session in case > the server is pulled out of the pool? (assuming non-centralized > session support) Option b). In the case of a controlled server removal, wouldn't you be able to wait until all clients are gone? You know, set the LVS weight to 0, then wait, then remove the server without session loss. /Per Jessen, Zürich