Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs

"Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Tue, 10 April 2012 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9463811E808C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 23:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CEhd2Apkw1FS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 23:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A84C11E8072 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 23:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SHV0w-0000tW-By for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:57:18 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>) id 1SHV0c-0000sa-Qk for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:56:58 +0000
Received: from smtpout4.laposte.net ([193.253.67.229] helo=smtpout.laposte.net) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>) id 1SHV0a-0003rK-C3 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:56:57 +0000
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([88.174.226.208]) by mwinf8508-out with ME id w6wV1i0054WQcrc036wVFj; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:56:30 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D6F232E; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:56:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arekh.dyndns.org
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arekh.okg [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sI1GNwYYX3+l; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:56:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from arekh.dyndns.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by arekh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:56:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 192.168.0.4 (SquirrelMail authenticated user nim) by arekh.dyndns.org with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:56:26 +0200
Message-ID: <a2831da7ae0f6b68d3e006009cd44a52.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOXZevDfCT4Zk=5v=cHhtfsFWYc++en_Y0FL+MCBg1yAASdNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83903.1333917310@critter.freebsd.dk> <0edc27e8599b098be0f9a3bf18a1653f.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <CAOXZevDfCT4Zk=5v=cHhtfsFWYc++en_Y0FL+MCBg1yAASdNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:56:26 +0200
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: Per Buer <perbu@varnish-software.com>
Cc: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-7.fc18
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.253.67.229; envelope-from=nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net; helo=smtpout.laposte.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SHV0a-0003rK-C3 80e359655e9c0144fda3527de55d9005
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/a2831da7ae0f6b68d3e006009cd44a52.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13415
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SHV0w-0000tW-By@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:57:18 +0000

Le Lun 9 avril 2012 18:30, Per Buer a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
> <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, but on a big proxy farm setup, the load balancer may orient the second
>> request to an new proxy (since the first one is busy). And the origin web
>> site
>> may also be part of a cdn, and the second request may not end on the same
>> delivery server as the first one
>
> So, if the proxy farm fails to hash incoming requests on source IP or
> target URL then this might happen.

That breaks load balancing as soon as your network is big enough, with
different parts that get active at different points of the day.

> But either of these methods will
> easily help avoid the problem.

No they won't.
To scale network equipments need to be as stupid as possible, and as much
smarts as possible kept in the endpoints. You're breaking this principle
there.

And anyway even if your solution was possible, you still get unhappy users
that serial refresh because they're not seeing initial progress in their web
clients

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot