From: Adam L. Beberg (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 02 2000 - 15:09:30 PDT
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> Adam Beberg writes:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2000, Rohit Khare wrote:
> > > Here's where it gets a bit technical. WebScaler takes care of the
> > > normally processor-intensive tasks involved in setting up and
> > > processing users' Transport Control Protocol requests, off-loading
> > > those duties from the site's Web servers.
> > My god! It's a front end web proxy! How long has everyone running
> > mod_perl or any SQL engine been using this as a standard bit-pushing
> > technique now?
> It's not a front-end web proxy, actually. It doesn't cache any
> content. It just turns all requests over new connections into requests
> over existing TCP connections.
Exactly the method that I spoke of. Two running versions of Apache, one
with mod_perl or SQL, and another that's a non-caching proxy. The first
can saturate with "heavy" requests and burst the data to the second
copy, immediately moving on to another heavy request. The second handles
slowly sending data to all those modems out there. If you tweak this
slightly with some caching, it's functionally exactly what's described
in the release, one server connect to many clients. If the release is
misleading, that's not my problem ;)
Now, 320,000 TCP/sec is damn impressive, since even with the smallest
TCP packets possible (one byte requests) that's well more then a 100Mbit
connection to the net will handle. With realistic sized packets they are
claiming gigabit bandwidth. Screw the proxy, I want one of whatever
hardware they run on (and the 22 T3's so i can use it).
- Adam L. Beberg
Mithral Communications & Design, Inc.
The Cosm Project - http://cosm.mithral.com/
firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.iit.edu/~beberg/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 15:11:31 PDT