Pound handles multiple backends with the same IP address but different 
port numbers just fine.  One standard application of pound is to 
redirect requests from the standard port (80) to whereever the 
application is really working.  This allows the backends to be restarted 
without root access if desired.

Franklin Grove wrote:
[...][...]

I have looked at other threads but was not able to see wether
there has been anything implemented sofar to reload the config
without restarting pound.

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 16:33 -0500, Franklin Grove wrote:[...]

I think you are talking about out of band data. It is handled in-band
(i.e. no special handling at all).
[...]

I never heard of a proxy that does that. I am not aware of any
"official" protocol specification that even uses out-of-band data
(though admittedly that doesn't mean much).
[...]

Are you sure your applets use HTTP? There is no mention of out-of-band
data there (at least as far as I know). Pound is an HTTP proxy - it
can't proxy anything else.
[...]

That is no problem whatsoever.
[...]

...which does support out-of-band data?[...]

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:41 +0100, Hegedus Ervin wrote:[...]

That's really modest...

In any case, I would look at the networking and card(s) you use: how
many of them, separate ones for server and back-end side, what type,
separate network segments, etc.
[...]

That is horrible - you are wasting resources for nothing. Try Alive 30
(or at least 15).
[...]

When all your servers are equal you are better off with Priority 1 for
all of them.
[...]

Are you sure about this? If you have a congested network (or just a slow
CPU) you'll get time-outs and "dead" back-ends simply because a
"connect" or "read" do not complete on time. Try TimeOut 60 (or higher)
for more reliable results.
[...]

Where does ab run? On the same machine as the server, or on a separate
workstation?
[...]

See my remarks above.
[...]

That is certainly a problem - 50 requests per second on such limited
hardware is already high.

I suggest you fix your config as discussed above and try again.[...]

Dear Robert,

thank you for your request,
[...]
ok,
[...]
ok,
[...]
thanks,
[...]
ok,
[...]
on a separate workstation - other IP segment, than Pound and
other, than back-ends.
[...]
so, do you think, this may be really a hardwer problem?
(i just ask you, cause back-ends servers can serve these claim,
and i try to measure another Linux based Apache (PIII 1.5GHz,
256MB RAM), that gives very good results)
[...]
ok, thank you for your answer.

we will purchase a better hardware (a "very-better" hardware :)),
i just test the Pound.

is there any way to come up with back-ends servers throughput?
can you point me some documentation about sizing of hardware for
Pound, that depends the load of site?


thank you:

a.

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 21:26 -0500, Kevin Minnick wrote:[...]

Please put something like tcpwatch between Pound and the back-end and
see exactly what is being sent back and forth.
[...]

More likely you loose the session due to time-out on Pound and/or on the
server.[...]

Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 18:39 schrieb Robert Segall:[...]

just curious, what would be the difference? I would think, with all 
backends having the same priority, the chosen number wouldn't matter at 
all.

Cheers, Sascha
[...]

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 19:06 +0100, Sascha Ottolski wrote:[...]

In the 1.x series the code is slightly less efficient if you use 9/9 (a
bit more memory used, and a few extra CPU cycles). This has been fixed
in 2.x[...]

Hello Pound Community,

we are searching for a apache https loadbalancing/failover solution on
windows 2003 platform.

Do you know if pound is running under windows without trouble?
If yes, do you have an howto/doc for (comiling)/configuring pound under windows

Thanks,
Robert

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 07:52 +1000, Dean wrote:[...]

Check your log files - Pound tells you exactly why it rejected the
request. With 2.x we have eliminated the (default) checks on URL, though
you can still specify them if you wish. In your case it's more likely
you have a bad request type (something other than GET, POST or HEAD).[...]