if you are introducing a nonce why use a hash? with a performance reflective mutating nonce on the user id modulo works as is
if you are introducing monitoring on a per user precision why use modulo? with a per user scheduled monitoring moving users based on user ids works as is
maybe i was unclear in the above but i like the gp's simple solution.. especially because i personally have an affection for the modulo operator, but also because.. it only requires an operator that performs in a scale dependent finitely specific number of cycles and works as designed without any monitoring
the above was intended to bring attention to shortcomings and probable failures in an otherwise elegant attempt
You could use nonce to determine what server to use. But I didn't want to choose directly, just the ability to chance the output of the hash for whatever reason.
I did not want to use just any non random rebalancing mechanics to avoid advesaries attacking that implementation. With a hash the output is deterministic, but unpredictable.
if you are introducing monitoring on a per user precision why use modulo? with a per user scheduled monitoring moving users based on user ids works as is
maybe i was unclear in the above but i like the gp's simple solution.. especially because i personally have an affection for the modulo operator, but also because.. it only requires an operator that performs in a scale dependent finitely specific number of cycles and works as designed without any monitoring
the above was intended to bring attention to shortcomings and probable failures in an otherwise elegant attempt
the method is flawed but the direction is superb