Replacing apache with nginx

[mike]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Gena Makhomed <gmm at csdoc.com> wrote:

> if fail dedicated session storage server - all session will not work.
> may be in hours, before admins configure new server instead of failed.

the assumption is you have relatively decent reliability and
redundancy setup if it is important to you. :)

> this is simple tradeoff: "reliability" vs "performance" vs "complexity"
> "complexity" - in case of "failsafe (redundant) shared session storage"

i use shared session storage and have for years. i don't lose
sessions. also, if the database is down, the site is down anyway; so
the user's loss of a session is not the biggest deal. perhaps that is
one of my reasons behind asking this - if the site is using the
database, you can use the same connection to the database for session
handling as well; and if the db is down, who cares if sessions are
down - the *whole site* is.

> m> depending on the size of your site you can use
> m> a two-phase plan involving memcached and mysql,
>
> this is may be too complex and/or too slow in use.

not really, memcached would be faster than mysql most likely, but it
is not persistent. which is why you would need database-backing
(persistence) behind it.

> m> use mysql cluster,
>
> may be, this is the best solution. thanks for idea!

this is much more complex than the memcached solution IMHO :)