Re: [Sks-devel] reverse proxies and the pool

[Phil Pennock]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2013-10-30 at 19:34 +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> You'll find this in the wiki[0], and for load balanced nginx I've also
> written a post on [1].
> 
> References:
> [0] https://bitbucket.org/skskeyserver/sks-keyserver/wiki/Peering
> [1] http://blog.sumptuouscapital.com/2013/10/load-balancing-sks/

Hrm, say you have two instances, one only peering with the other, as
you describe.  Then during reconciliation of the two, when they're
talking to each other, they're likely to be busy at the _same_ time, so
load balancing isn't buying you much then.  It seems more that you'll
want to be biasing towards the internal-only one, so that what you're
buying protection against is the external peering occupying your
gateway.

In fact, it looks more like you want either:

 (1) at least two instances which are not gateway instances and not
     peering with each other; reverse proxy upstreams pointing to just
     those two
 (2) the same three instances total, all able to peer with each other,
     and the reverse proxy talking to all three (but with the gateway
     de-preferenced)

Otherwise, while what you describe is strictly better than a single
instance, I'm not sure its as much better as might immediately be
inferred without more analysis.

- -Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAlJxhuoACgkQQDBDFTkDY398PwCfYwDyljXNRGnOUjxmhUr373Da
DF8AnR3IWZX38CPumUtF6SMuw5zJGTMa
=AfhV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----