Re: CARP revisited: a better solution?

Scott Lystig Fritchie wrote:
>
> Though I don't operate a large cluster of caching proxy boxes (yet),
> the CARP "protocol" draft & MS's propaganda caught my interest. I
> agree that it would be a good thing if a "cluster" of caching M
> proxy boxes with N gigs of storage each, it would be nice if the
> cluster had an effective cache size of MxN gigs instead of N gigs. (I
> don't know if the latter actually happens with ICP-communicating
> proxies end up doing that, but MS's argument sounds plausible to me.)
>
> What if there were a state midway between the usual caching proxy mode
> and the proxy only mode:
>
> * if a file is retrieved DIRECT or from a "far-away" parent
> or sibling cache, then cache the file yourself.
> * if an positive ICP response from a "near" sibling is
> received, retrieve the file from that sibling but don't cache
> it yourself.
>
> MS argues that ICP traffic would increase exponentially as boxes are
> added to the cluster. Assuming that the multicast ICP code is robust,
> problem solved, no?

I don't think so. There would still be plenty of ICP replies, which are
not multicast.

My ideal is a true distributed cache...where the files are on N machines
where N >=1, and processing is performed on M machines (which may
overlap), such that CPU and disk-access become seperately valued
resources.

D
Received on Wed Apr 08 1998 - 21:57:33 MDT