Hello,

I've become recently interested in load balancing solution for
web servers. It looks like Pound performs quite well in this
domain. I am aware that it's possible to configure the load
ratio for every back-end server.

Did you consider to use the servers' information provided by
apache's mod_status in oder to dynamically calculate the ratios?

Is it reasonable to implement such a feature for Pound?

Thanks,
Igor Stirbu

-- 
:wq

On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 17:19 +0200, Igor Stirbu wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've become recently interested in load balancing solution for
> web servers. It looks like Pound performs quite well in this
> domain. I am aware that it's possible to configure the load
> ratio for every back-end server.
> 
> Did you consider to use the servers' information provided by
> apache's mod_status in oder to dynamically calculate the ratios?

Not really. That would be Apache-specific and not work on any other
server.

> Is it reasonable to implement such a feature for Pound?

Probably not, unless you can come up with a generic mechanism that works
with most servers.
-- 
Robert Segall
Apsis GmbH
Postfach, Uetikon am See, CH-8707
Tel: +41-44-920 4904

Hello

On 11/13/06, Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> wrote:
> > Did you consider to use the servers' information provided by
> > apache's mod_status in oder to dynamically calculate the ratios?
>
> Not really. That would be Apache-specific and not work on any other
> server.

I know it's Apache-specific, but considering how many apaches are
controlled by Pound, it wouldn't be such a a bad thing, though it is
always possible to make it a compiler option.

> > Is it reasonable to implement such a feature for Pound?
>
> Probably not, unless you can come up with a generic mechanism that works
> with most servers.

It's obvious that it should be created a generic mechanism for supporting
serverla types of statuses. The one that I've mentioned is from apache's
mod_status. There are other application like Mongrel or IIS that may have
or may implement status features for feedback. A more precise question
is: do you think that adding a feedback control feature to Pound would improve
it's functionality?

Thanks,
Igor Stirbu

-- 
:wq

would be a nice feature.
I agree that it would be Apache-specific, but what if functionality could be
added as plugins... and pound only receives generic statuses from its
plugins?

dober.



On 11/13/06, Igor Stirbu <igor.stirbu(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> On 11/13/06, Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> wrote:
> > > Did you consider to use the servers' information provided by
> > > apache's mod_status in oder to dynamically calculate the ratios?
> >
> > Not really. That would be Apache-specific and not work on any other
> > server.
>
> I know it's Apache-specific, but considering how many apaches are
> controlled by Pound, it wouldn't be such a a bad thing, though it is
> always possible to make it a compiler option.
>
> > > Is it reasonable to implement such a feature for Pound?
> >
> > Probably not, unless you can come up with a generic mechanism that works
> > with most servers.
>
> It's obvious that it should be created a generic mechanism for supporting
> serverla types of statuses. The one that I've mentioned is from apache's
> mod_status. There are other application like Mongrel or IIS that may have
> or may implement status features for feedback. A more precise question
> is: do you think that adding a feedback control feature to Pound would
> improve
> it's functionality?
>
> Thanks,
> Igor Stirbu
>
> --
> :wq
>
> --
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject 'unsubscribe' to pound(at)apsis.ch.
> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
>
>
http://www.apsis.ch/pound/pound_list/archive/2006/2006-11/1163431192000/1163441110000
>

Hello,

Diego Oberlin wrote:
> would be a nice feature.
> I agree that it would be Apache-specific, but what if functionality 
> could be
> added as plugins... and pound only receives generic statuses from its
> plugins?
And support for plugins, and them something else .. where goes the moto
"keep it simple" ? :))
We will finish with balancer that is more heavy then the web server.

I think it's enough if you can change priority without restarting pound 
(via poundctl),
then everybody can implement it's own solution that works perfect for 
him, using third party software.
>
> dober.
>
>
>
> On 11/13/06, Igor Stirbu <igor.stirbu(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> On 11/13/06, Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> wrote:
>> > > Did you consider to use the servers' information provided by
>> > > apache's mod_status in oder to dynamically calculate the ratios?
>> >
>> > Not really. That would be Apache-specific and not work on any other
>> > server.
>>
>> I know it's Apache-specific, but considering how many apaches are
>> controlled by Pound, it wouldn't be such a a bad thing, though it is
>> always possible to make it a compiler option.
>>
>> > > Is it reasonable to implement such a feature for Pound?
>> >
>> > Probably not, unless you can come up with a generic mechanism that 
>> works
>> > with most servers.
>>
>> It's obvious that it should be created a generic mechanism for 
>> supporting
>> serverla types of statuses. The one that I've mentioned is from apache's
>> mod_status. There are other application like Mongrel or IIS that may 
>> have
>> or may implement status features for feedback. A more precise question
>> is: do you think that adding a feedback control feature to Pound would
>> improve
>> it's functionality?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Igor Stirbu
>>
>> -- 
>> :wq
>>
>> -- 
>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject 'unsubscribe' to 
>> pound(at)apsis.ch.
>> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
>>
>>
http://www.apsis.ch/pound/pound_list/archive/2006/2006-11/1163431192000/1163441110000

>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Best Wishes,
Stefan Lambrev
ICQ# 24134177

Stefan:
You are right.
It works fine, it's simple and lightweight.
It should be kept that way.



On 11/16/06, Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev(at)sun-fish.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Diego Oberlin wrote:
> > would be a nice feature.
> > I agree that it would be Apache-specific, but what if functionality
> > could be
> > added as plugins... and pound only receives generic statuses from its
> > plugins?
> And support for plugins, and them something else .. where goes the moto
> "keep it simple" ? :))
> We will finish with balancer that is more heavy then the web server.
>
> I think it's enough if you can change priority without restarting pound
> (via poundctl),
> then everybody can implement it's own solution that works perfect for
> him, using third party software.
> >
> > dober.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/13/06, Igor Stirbu <igor.stirbu(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> On 11/13/06, Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> wrote:
> >> > > Did you consider to use the servers' information provided by
> >> > > apache's mod_status in oder to dynamically calculate the ratios?
> >> >
> >> > Not really. That would be Apache-specific and not work on any other
> >> > server.
> >>
> >> I know it's Apache-specific, but considering how many apaches are
> >> controlled by Pound, it wouldn't be such a a bad thing, though it is
> >> always possible to make it a compiler option.
> >>
> >> > > Is it reasonable to implement such a feature for Pound?
> >> >
> >> > Probably not, unless you can come up with a generic mechanism that
> >> works
> >> > with most servers.
> >>
> >> It's obvious that it should be created a generic mechanism for
> >> supporting
> >> serverla types of statuses. The one that I've mentioned is from
> apache's
> >> mod_status. There are other application like Mongrel or IIS that may
> >> have
> >> or may implement status features for feedback. A more precise question
> >> is: do you think that adding a feedback control feature to Pound would
> >> improve
> >> it's functionality?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Igor Stirbu
> >>
> >> --
> >> :wq
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject 'unsubscribe' to
> >> pound(at)apsis.ch.
> >> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
> >>
> >>
>
http://www.apsis.ch/pound/pound_list/archive/2006/2006-11/1163431192000/1163441110000
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Best Wishes,
> Stefan Lambrev
> ICQ# 24134177
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject 'unsubscribe' to pound(at)apsis.ch.
> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
>
>
http://www.apsis.ch/pound/pound_list/archive/2006/2006-11/1163431192000/1163666451000
>

Hello Stefan,

On 11/16/06, Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev(at)sun-fish.com> wrote:
> I think it's enough if you can change priority without restarting pound
> (via poundctl),
> then everybody can implement it's own solution that works perfect for
> him, using third party software.

Your idea became clear after a couple of hours of configuration
and testing of Pound. I started to work on the code and created
a patch that adds the possibility to view and change backends'
priority.

http://www.c7obs.net/~igor/files/pound-prio2006-11-27.patch.gz
http://www.c7obs.net/~igor/files/pound-prio2006-11-27.patch.html

Next I will see how to use the information from the backends
to adapt the backends' priority. If anyone wants to comment
or to advise, please, do so.

Thanks,
Igor
-- 
:wq