> > So what would be the alternative method in my case (2 pools of 3 servers)?
> > Would this work?
> >
> > acl u1 dstdomain u1.example.com
> > acl u2 dstdomain u2.example.com
> >
> > cache_peer_access u1pool1 allow u1
> > cache_peer_access u1pool2 allow u1
> > cache_peer_access u1pool3 allow u1
> > cache_peer_access u1pool1 deny u2
> > cache_peer_access u1pool2 deny u2
> > cache_peer_access u1pool3 deny u2
> >
> > cache_peer_access u2pool1 allow u2
> > cache_peer_access u2pool2 allow u2
> > cache_peer_access u2pool3 allow u2
> > cache_peer_access u2pool1 deny u1
> > cache_peer_access u2pool2 deny u1
> > cache_peer_access u2pool3 deny u1
> >
> > Does it spread the requests or won't the first cache_peer_access always be
> > chosen...?
> >
>
> Try something like this:
>
> cache_peer 192.168.1.1 parent 80 0 no-query front-end-https=auto
> originserver name=origin_1_1 sourcehash
> cache_peer 192.168.1.2 parent 8080 0 no-query front-end-https=auto
> originserver name=origin_1_2 sourcehash
> acl service_1 dstdomain site.com
> cache_peer_access origin_1_1 allow service_1
> cache_peer_access origin_1_2 allow service_1
Do I need to explicitly deny the other dstdomains or can I just use a deny all (unless it will override the previous allow)?
By example If I have 3 pools of 2 servers:
acl u1 dstdomain u1.example.com
acl u2 dstdomain u2.example.com
acl u3 dstdomain u3.example.com
cache_peer_access u1_1 allow u1
cache_peer_access u1_2 allow u1
cache_peer_access u1_1 deny all
cache_peer_access u1_2 deny all
cache_peer_access u2_1 allow u2
cache_peer_access u2_2 allow u2
cache_peer_access u2_1 deny all
cache_peer_access u2_2 deny all
etc...
Thx,
JD
