>> > 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 > <snip> The *_access lines are run from top down an a first-match-wins basis per peer. So an allow of whatever you want, followed by a deny all for each peer should be fine. Amos
