[ic] IC on a cluster?
Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:45:54 -0500
Speaking of the 'latest docs' - what's the ETA on those?
Thanks for the update on that... I'll go ahead and start some testing.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Jon Jensen wrote:
> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:36:55 -0500 (CDT)
> To: email@example.com
> From: Jon Jensen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [ic] IC on a cluster?
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Jud Harris wrote:
> > Can anyone comment on why the docs for the SessionDB option say
> > "This is not recommended."
> > It seems like a really great alternative to NFS mounting the session
> > directory - why isn't it recommended?
> That's been removed from the latest docs. The main reason it wasn't
> recommended is that many people would automatically choose to put
> in SQL because they thought it was better, when it's actually worse for
> the average case. But for load-balancing, it's a good option, with
> NFS-mounted session files being the other. In any case, people changing
> session setups should test and benchmark to make sure they know what
> they're getting into ...
> Interchange-users mailing list