Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51376 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2007 09:21:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Sep 2007 09:21:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 41115 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2007 09:21:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 41040 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2007 09:21:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 41029 invoked by uid 99); 3 Sep 2007 09:21:45 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:21:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [193.56.114.156] (HELO smtp2.fr.adp.com) (193.56.114.156) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:21:41 +0000 Received: from exchange2k304.gaia.fr ([150.175.10.77]) by smtp2.fr.adp.com (xx/xx) with ESMTP id l839LI2E028604 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:21:18 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:21:17 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271530213F6F6@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers Thread-Index: AcfrzXL0Xq1Co/EIR26O/IG6E8AhfQAA9AmwAAYaN9AAgcb2MAACQz1wAAFud9AAAWmn8AAA2Pqg References: <3B21A253728EA247A10A692547A271530213F6F6@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Axel-St=E9phane__SMORGRAV?= To: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Pl=FCm, R=FCdiger, VF-Group [mailto:ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com]=20 >>Envoy=E9 : lundi 3 septembre 2007 10:35 >>=C0 : dev@httpd.apache.org >>Objet : Re: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers >> >> >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Axel-St=E9phane SMORGRAV >>=20 >> Gesendet: Montag, 3. September 2007 10:05 >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Betreff: RE: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers >>=20 >>=20 >> Persistent backend connection when proxying using RewriteRule is=20 >> exactly what I am trying to do. >>=20 >> AFAIU there is no way to achieve persistent connections with the=20 >> default worker because (correct me if I am wrong) a worker is=20 >> associated with a single proxy_conn_pool and the proxy_conn_pool is=20 >> associated with a single address, and in the case of the default=20 >> worker the address may be different each time the worker is used. >>=20 >> This means that the only way to make these backend connections=20 >> 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