Fair Proxy Balancer

[Jay Reitz]

Wouldn't setting your proxy timeouts low solve this scenario?  If there is
an application server with poor performance, it will be marked as failed and
nginx will divert requests to your other 10/100/1000 servers.

>j.

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:20 AM, BJ Clark <bjclark at scidept.com> wrote:

> Kiril,
>
> You would think that would be the case, but it's not.
> EC2 is actually only useful in a sense that you can bring online "n"
> number of servers at any time, and take them offline at any time. You can
> use 1 server one day, 100 servers the next day, 1000 servers 3 hours later,
> and be back down to 1 server an hour after that.
>
> The actual performance of said servers can definitely fluctuate.
>
> BJ Clark
>
> On May 6, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Kiril Angov wrote:
>
>  Isn't the point of using Amazon EC2 exactly that you get guarantee
> > that your virtual machine will not be affected by normal problems
> > related to hosting it on a single machine. I mean they say that they
> > have a copy of your virtual machine on more than on server on maybe
> > more than one location. I may be wrong here but from what I have read,
> > you should not worry about your instance shutting down or slowing down
> > drastically because what happens if I only have one instance and I
> > reply on that?
> >
> > Kiril
> >
> > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Rt Ibmer <rtibmx at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you. These are excellent points. In my case all upstream servers
> > > share the same responsibility for the types of requests that are served. I
> > > guess I am looking at 'fair' more as a way to auto-tune the weighting based
> > > on the relative performance of each upstream.
> > >
> > > I am hosting within the Amazon EC2 network. Because of fluctuations in
> > > their virtualized environment and underlying systems, it is very possible to
> > > have  some   some backends performing poorly compared to others.
> > >
> > > For instance imagine a scenario where I have 3 virtualized servers
> > > running on EC2 that are running as my upstream boxes.  These three servers
> > > may actually be (and are most likely) on different physical servers. Now
> > > assume one of the EC2 servers has a  problem that affects performance of all
> > > virtualized servers that it is hosting (perhaps it is networking related or
> > > perhaps it affects the speed of the machine).
> > >
> > > Now my upstream server on that troubled box will be running at a lot
> > > lower level of performance than my other upstreams, and this will show
> > > itself on the bottom line by much higher average ms total response time
> > > (time it takes to connect to upstream and get its full response) compared to
> > > the others.
> > >
> > > So in my case, I would like to use 'fair' almost as a way to maximize
> > > site performance based on the health of the systems.  Under heavy load I
> > > think 'fair' would likely do this as requests for the slower box would get
> > > backed up and get reflected in the weighting.  But under a light load
> > > probably not.  So in that case 'fair' would still route requests to a server
> > > that may take 500ms longer to reply just because there is no backlog.
> > >
> > > Anyway I realize that you did not write 'fair' to solve this but just
> > > wanted to provide you with this feedback in case it spurs some ideas for how
> > > to expand it to cover this usage scenario.  Thank you for this opportunity
> > > to provide the feedback and for your great contributions to the nginx
> > > project!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
> > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nginx.org/pipermail/nginx/attachments/20080506/50723bb5/attachment.html>