httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Garrett Rooney" <roo...@electricjellyfish.net>
Subject Re: Should fastcgi be a proxy backend?
Date Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:55:31 GMT
On 3/6/06, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I think the whole issue revolves around whether the balancer
> should, or should not, pre-open connections and manage them
> internally, or whether it should be one-shot. The real
> power is being able to load balance, and implement
> that in a central location.
>
> So it seems to me that some sort of Balancer member
> option that determines whether or not the connection
> is "persistent" or not would alleviate some of
> the issues you raise.

We actually have a way to do that, it's the close_on_recycle flag, and
I had to turn it on in order to get anything approaching reliability
for fastcgi.  The problem with just using that is that without some
coordination between worker processes you're still going to end up
with collisions where more than one connection is made to a given
fastcgi process, and the majority of those don't know how to handle
more than one connection at a time, so requests will simply hang.

-garrett

Mime
View raw message