httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV <Axel-Stephane.SMORG...@europe.adp.com>
Subject RE: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
Date Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:21:17 GMT
>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [mailto:ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com] 
>>Envoyé : lundi 3 septembre 2007 10:35
>>À : dev@httpd.apache.org
>>Objet : Re: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV
>> 
>> Gesendet: Montag, 3. September 2007 10:05
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: RE: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
>> 
>> 
>> Persistent backend connection when proxying using RewriteRule is 
>> exactly what I am trying to do.
>> 
>> AFAIU there is no way to achieve persistent connections with the 
>> default worker because (correct me if I am wrong) a worker is 
>> associated with a single proxy_conn_pool and the proxy_conn_pool is 
>> associated with a single address, and in the case of the default 
>> worker the address may be different each time the worker is used.
>> 
>> This means that the only way to make these backend connections 
>> persistent is to create at least one worker per backend. Right?
>
>Correct.
>

Some questions:

1. Since the backend address is not known to the configuration, isn't the only way to create
a worker for "dynamic" backends to create them as they occur ?

2. Does what I suggest seem like a viable/sensible solution ? Should it be supplemented with
a setting to activate/de-activate the on-the-fly creation of new workers ?

3. Any idea why I end up with a mutex problem and the aforementioned error, or how to go about
debugging it ?

BR
-ascs

Mime
View raw message