[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
At 5:03 PM +0000 8/11/03, Paul Graham wrote:
>We had multiple servers. (Yahoo Store now has over 100.)
>We just had users talk to a single server for the duration
>of their login session. --pg
Unless you had a way of "persisting" the continuation state,
this just doesn't meet my definition of a "high availability"
web server architecture. Did you do anything more sophisticated
to keep people from losing if, e.g., a server went down?
I personally don't see why a continuation, with its implicitly
captured state, is superior to having a session object that
explicitly captures the state. The HotDispatch web site (also
written in Lisp, BTW) that I worked had very complex workflow,
and we found that objects worked just fine, and also worked
correctly in the face of load-balancing and crashed servers.
>--Evan Martin wrote:
>> On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 20:21, Paul Graham wrote:
>> > I argued this in my dissertation, but now I think I was wrong.
>> > They're extremely useful for overcoming the statelessness of
>> > CGI scripts. See
>> > http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/paulgraham/bbnexcerpts.txt
>> I've read of other people doing similar things, and I think it's very
>> cool, but I wondered:
>> How can this scale to a large website, such as one with multiple
>> independent web servers?
>> Evan Martin