2 ms·
That's certainly not a use case I'd have ever imagined. With that scenario I'd have thought sessions (essentially binding a user to the same backend for a perio
by stephenr 3y ago
That's certainly not a use case I'd have ever imagined. With that scenario I'd have thought sessions (essentially binding a user to the same backend for a period of time) in the load balancer(s) would be a simpler solution, but that's just me.
- Arnt 3y agoArguably that was done, if I remember the architecture well… the company had a rule against SPoFs, so there were ① several load balancers at different sites, with ② several clusters of servers behind them, and ③ several backends supplying data to the servers. I think the JWT usage was in 2, but moving it to 1 would have presented the same problem, because in that case the mapping from user to backend would have to be coordinated for geographically dispersed load balancers, with the same timing constraints. It would also be possible to use various techniques that add a delay to the user, such as avoiding anycast and having the client occasionally slow down while searching for a usable cluster.