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

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 10/28/2013 03:10 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> With a great number of the SKS servers already in the pool now
> supporting a reverse proxy[a] does it make sense to make this a
> hard-requirement for inclusion in the pool in order to increase
> availability?

I like this idea.  We have a lot of servers that implement this practice 
(with different reverse proxies).  currently, if a query to the pool 
happens to hit one of the non-reverse-proxied servers that is currently 
stuck serving a slow client, it makes it look like "the pool is broken". 
 We'd avoid those problems by having the pool just refer to those 
systems with higher-availability setups.  Non-proxied servers would 
continue to work, and to gossip with the rest of the network as 
expected, but they would not be subject to the load coming from the 
clients who use the pool.

So I would be happy to see this change.

For those operating sks keyservers without a reverse proxy, but who want 
to start using one, please see the examples and documentation at:

https://bitbucket.org/skskeyserver/sks-keyserver/wiki/Peering#!http-performance

Regards,

        --dkg