3 ms·
> Low concurrency meant that one host consistently had 2 connections and another consistently had 3. That's 50% more load on one host. This seems like a non-pr
by sokoloff 3y ago
> Low concurrency meant that one host consistently had 2 connections and another consistently had 3. That's 50% more load on one host.
This seems like a non-problem. What would you wish an idealized load balancer to do in this case and how would that improve any relevant metric?
- heavenlyblue 3y agoYeah I don't understand how they "dealt with it" in the first place.
- phamilton 3y agoThe problem was that it was the same one machine that always had the extra 50% traffic. The eventual fix from Amazon was to randomly select in a tie breaker so that each machine had, on average, 2.1 concurrent requests (assuming 10 machines).
- sp332 3y agoAlternate the incoming connections from one server to the other. That gives the one with two connections some time to clear its queue while the other queue may be getting longer.