5 ms·
> This is what happened when one bad web server decided it was going to fail all of its requests, and would do so while incurring the absolute minimum amount of
by darshitpp 8y ago
> This is what happened when one bad web server decided it was going to fail all of its requests, and would do so while incurring the absolute minimum amount of load on itself.
Good ELI5 explanation, but it doesn't really explain why the webserver failed the requests as it did. Or maybe I'm missing something?
- masklinn 8y ago> it doesn't really explain why the webserver failed the requests as it did. Or maybe I'm missing something? That the article is about load-balancers and how a single "rogue actor" can have outsized effect on the entire thing. The failing webserver is besides the point.
- darshitpp 8y agoOh, ok
- Twirrim 8y agoTake your pick. There's a remarkable number of things that can cause a server to start returning 500s while the rest of the fleet is fine. Doesn't even have to be that specific server's fault (e.g. database behind it could have reached a connection limit handling the connection pools from all the other webservers, leaving this one in the dust. Fun part from this is it can result in the misbehaving server _moving_ as connections close and re-open)
- darshitpp 8y agoUnderstood! Thanks for explaining!