On Jan 31, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Michael Bartosh wrote:
On Jan 31, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Josh Wisenbaker wrote:
Compounding this is the fact that the clients receive the replica
list in the same order, regardless of where you get it from. So you
might point your clients at the closest replica, but they still query
the servers in the same order with the master first.
All in all it's a real crap shoot as to what server you get.
I wouldn't call it a crap shoot.. I mean really a crap shoot is what
I'd be after. I'd call it consistent and relatively predictable but
difficult to change. I mean AD manages site policy and it's pretty
straightforward. The idea isn't that hard at a minimal level. But I'm
a little worried about the speed with which Tiger is coming out the
door (am I'm a well of positive energy today) so I don't see any
features like this down the road- much less in a baked, usable
package.
True, at least a crap shoot would be random. I also find Apple calling
this 'load balancing' to be a farce. I wish that they would at least
allow you to point it at the server you wanted to use as the primary.
As it stands many people think they are doing just that by selecting a
replica in DA only to have the system latch on to the master anyway.
The sneaky thing is that you don't notice this unless you are really
paying attention...
Josh
--
Josh Wisenbaker, ACSA
http://www.afp548.com
Breaking my server to save yours.
