Anybody interested in testing patch to allow weighted nodes?

[dormando]

> So my question to this mailing list is...  does the perlbal community 
> see any value in having a weighting mechanism?  If the answer is no, I 
> would love to hear how you are achieving the same effect and why your 
> solution is your preferred mechanism.
> 
> Thanks in  advance for any constructive feedback,

Twiddling values on the arrowpoint/bigip/netscaler/alteon/whatever is 
something I don't miss. It's embarassing how bad an expensive netscaler 
does its job compared to perlbal.

I used to wish perlbal would allow me to specify the max connections per 
node in the nodefile. Firstly to make it easier to twiddle the settings 
without having to push config updates to dozens of servers. Secondly so 
perlbal knows not to make an extra connect attempt if you're at the 
limit already.

But uh. We now have scripts that detect how fast a machine is, reduces 
the number if it's running other services (mogstored, memcached), and 
handles that magically now.

Are you having an issue with connecting more often than necessary? With 
almost 200 backend servers with 4-12 apache processes each, we're only 
initiating new connections a couple times per second. Once you're 
connected up the load just "flows" :) I've only ever had issues with 
perlbal's backend connection mechanisms when something's breaking keepalive.

-Dormando