[jacques_chester]

I must be stupid, because surely it can't be that hard to partition the routing groups?

For example, use a hashing algorithm that switches to 1 of N intelligent routers based on domain name.

If you pick the right algo you can pretty much add routers whenever you like.

(It would be nice to know what Heroku have tried so far, at the very least to drive off know-it-all blowhards like me.)

[vidarh]

You are right. In the previous thread I pointed out one way of doing this with haproxy (there are many other tools that could do the job): "balance hdr(host)" on the first layer, and least connections balancing on the second layer. Or to know exactly which hosts are handled at the second layer (to minimize configuration size for each second layer server), create acl's for either specific hosts, or suitably short substrings, and your second layer servers can keep only the configuration for that subset.

You can also easily enough use "just" iptables at the second layer (supports weighted least connections and many others and you can plug in your own modules), which makes it very easy to do dynamic reconfiguration (to e.g. add/remove dynos), as well as traffic accounting (setting iptables to count bytes routed per rule is easy) and other fun stuff.

[gojomo]

They could partition the routing, and maybe they do. But then (a) there's one extra hop mapping to the specialist routing group; and (b) it's still nice to have super-thin minimal-state routers, for example with just a list of up dynos updated once every few seconds, as opposed to live dyno load state updated thousands of times per second.

I too hope their full response givss more insight into their architecture... I have a couople of small projects at Herooku already and may use them. for several larger ones in the future.

[jacques_chester]

> there's one extra hop mapping

I thought about mentioning this. Because 1 small hop is still less than random blowouts in response time.

You can even cheat by pushing the router IP into DNS. Hop eliminated.

> it's still nice to have super-thin minimal-state routers

I imagine Heroku's customers are not interested in what is nice for Heroku, they want Heroku to do the icky difficult stuff for them. That was the whole pitch.

Anyway, we're arguing about Star Wars vs Star Trek here because we have no earthly idea what they've tried.

[gojomo]

...pushing the router IP into DNS...

Maybe, but they don't currently give each app its own IP, and might not want the complications of volatile IP reassignments, DNS TTLs, and so on. (Though, their current "CNAME-to-yourapp.herokuapp.com" recommendation would allow for this.)

...want Heroku to do the icky difficult stuff...

Yes, but to a point. Customers also want Heroku to provide a simple model that allows scaling as easy as twisting a knob to deploy more dynos, or move to a higher-resourced plan. Customers accept some limitations to fit that model.

Maybe Heroku has a good reason for thin, fast, stateless routing -- and that works well for most customers, perhaps with some app adjustments. Then, coaxing customers to fit that model, rather than rely on any sort of 'smart' routing that would be overkill for most, is the right path.

We'll know a lot more when they post their "in-depth technical review" Friday.