Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Sun, 24 July 2011 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC1221F88DD; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1HJsSljFBkG5; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6701421F88B7; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so2788155qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.66.25 with SMTP id l25mr2772971qci.265.1311533865741; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.185.195 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110724184537.GZ22405@1wt.eu>
References: <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=FJymFPKcPVWrF-LkcEtNUz=Kt9L_ex+kLtjiGjL1T46w@mail.gmail.com> <4E28A51F.4020704@callenish.com> <CALiegf=4K2oWfmZjGMD7J_jyaDtS3i+Mu7R0Wh75Rr+MrQCjtw@mail.gmail.com> <20110722054345.GE18126@1wt.eu> <CALiegfnYm6g63JDHLiSH__r-or3kzK0XCVa3cC7RMP14KWBOSg@mail.gmail.com> <20110724120751.GQ22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegfncavmoMp4YDCeeJ3rsOfHAYQ99itKX2Q2eHB351T3X5A@mail.gmail.com> <20110724184537.GZ22405@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:57:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfne620wuDMAp235n3mVcXTAnbhhNm8vpiNCy5F7+VD92A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:57:47 -0000

2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>eu>:
>> Also, if the user realizes that the connection takes too much time and
>> presses F5 to reload the page, why couldn't the webbrowser cache the
>> SRV results and mark the previous attemp as failed so next server:port
>> woul be tryed when the user presses F5?
>
> Yes but once again, if you have to wait one minute on each new site so
> that all dead servers can be ignored, the web will look like a terrible
> experience to you.

Ok, but what would be the failover solution then? any failover
solution can take some time until redirects the client's request to a
working server, it's not just a client problem.

Anyhow, don't forget that SRV is not just for failover, but also for
load-balancing (you can state that a more powerful server-01 receives
80% of the traffic and server-02 the remaining 20%).

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>