I'm curious - at what time would / should additional web servers be
used to offload serving images (.css too?) Is there any gain to doing
that as apposed to just adding web servers that serve both HTML &
images?

AF wrote:
> I'm curious - at what time would / should additional web servers be
> used to offload serving images (.css too?) Is there any gain to doingo
> that as apposed to just adding web servers that serve both HTML &
> images?

If you split the load between two servers, not necessarily two
machines, you might get more performance.
This is a bit controversial, it's a matter of trial and error. For
small websites I don't think it makes a big
diffrerence, though.
Ottavio
http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista

On May 27, 7:50 am, Ottavio Caruso <pr0f3ss0r1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> AF wrote:
> > I'm curious - at what time would / should additional web servers be
> > used to offload serving images (.css too?) Is there any gain to doingo
> > that as apposed to just adding web servers that serve both HTML &
> > images?
>
> If you split the load between two servers, not necessarily two
> machines, you might get more performance.
> This is a bit controversial, it's a matter of trial and error. For
> small websites I don't think it makes a big
> diffrerence, though.
> Ottaviohttp://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista

This would be for a fairly large application - 1,000,000s of
pageviews / day...

My idea is to have another set of load balanced web servers used
*just* to dish images. Eliminate the replication requirement for app
servers. Setup the image servers to share an external NAS for data.

If you have any references - love to read them. I have been digging
around but nothing too much ful just yet.