Actions
Feature #1658
closedCookie balancer module
ASK QUESTIONS IN Forums:
Description
I have written module for balancing traffic between some count of fcgi modules. So it's called mod_cookie_balancer. Module is watching what cookie was received and redirect request to corresponding fcgi module. Thus we have separate web-users for each fcgi.
Configuration should be like this:
server.modules = ( "mod_cookie_balancer", "mod_fastcgi" ) mimetype.assign = ( ".html" => "text/html" ) server.indexfiles = ("index.php", "index.html", "index.htm") server.event-handler = "linux-sysepoll" server.document-root = "/home/kir/hash/docroot" debug.log-request-header = "enable" debug.log-response-header = "enable" debug.log-file-not-found = "enable" debug.log-request-handling = "enable" server.bind="127.0.0.1" server.port=8081 cb.count = 2 cb.prefix = "rpref" cb.keyword = "userid" fastcgi.debug = 1 fastcgi.server = ( "/rpref0" => (( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5051 )), "/rpref1" => (( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5052 )) )
Module source attached.
Files
Updated by admin over 16 years ago
1. Main feature of module is better speen under traffic-pressure than LUA-script.
2. Code was re-worked and improved, many mistakes was removed. Please, check it.
Updated by stbuehler over 16 years ago
- Did you try mod_magnet and prove it is the bottleneck? Of course a plain c module will be faster, but it takes much more time to maintain it.
- Still too many bugs. That is why you should do it in Lua. (Your cookie decoder is not safe)
- A balancer that sends requests by default to one backend? That isn't good.
I really don't think this will ever get upstream, even if you fix 2. and 3. - lighttpd is meant to be light, not to do everything you can think of.
Updated by stbuehler about 16 years ago
- Status changed from New to Wontfix
- Pending changed from Yes to No
- Patch available set to No
Actions
Also available in: Atom