While investigating PR 38227
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38227) I stumbled accross
ap_proxy_add_worker_to_balancer:
PROXY_DECLARE(void)
ap_proxy_add_worker_to_balancer(apr_pool_t *pool, proxy_balancer *balancer,
proxy_worker *worker)
{
proxy_worker *runtime;
runtime = apr_array_push(balancer->workers);
memcpy(runtime, worker, sizeof(proxy_worker));
runtime->id = proxy_lb_workers;
/* Increase the total runtime count */
proxy_lb_workers++;
}
Does anybody remember why we are making a copy of the worker?
This means that if you are only using a balancer you have the workers
twice (one in the balancer, one in the worker list). This seems to be
a waste of resources.
Even if you use a worker inside *and* outside a balancer, would it hurt
if these are the same?
>From a first glance I would say that some changes need to be done to avoid
a copy. The current approach seems to be at least somewhat convenient
from the developer side to handle the members of a balancer easily.
Regards
Rüdiger
|