Yet another sticky/persistent sessions question
mathew.snyder at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 17:47:17 UTC 2008
From what I've read sticky sessions seem less ideal than distributed
session management. I've pitched the idea but I think they are more
inclined to keep doing what they are doing and maintain sticky sessions
as the method of choice. I don't know why they prefer that over DSM but
ce la vie.
> A philosophy on perlbal (and the danga stack in general) is that sticky
> sessions are entirely wrong. A client request _must_ go where there are
> resources free, not where it feels comfortable going.
> This is reflected in the most of the danga stack:
> perlbal disconnects requests from backends, can send anywhere while
> making use of persistent connections on both ends.
> memcached distributes caches to any number of machines...
> mogilefs puts storage into a cloud via lookup service (that's also not
> gearman disconnects remote workers from clients in several ways.
> I just can't find good reasons for sticky sessions anymore :) It's just
> not an even method of scaling.
More information about the perlbal