httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mladen Turk <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy / mod_proxy_balancer
Date Tue, 05 May 2009 14:49:55 GMT
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On May 5, 2009, at 4:45 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> There are 2 weird things in the logic.
>>> - In ap_proxy_add_worker_to_balancer() we make a copy of the worker, 
>>> why not just the address?
>>> If you looks to child_init() in mod_proxy and mod_proxy_balancer we 
>>> see that mod_proxy initialise one copy and mod_proxy_balancer the 
>>> other, it is working but one of the copies is never used.
>>> - We want the child_init of mod_proxy before mod_proxy_balancer, that 
>>> prevents reset() of the balancer_method to control the creation of 
>>> the worker.
>> Yeah, all on target.
> The next thing I am on is the ap_proxy_create_worker() called for 
> reverse and forward (conf->reverse and conf->forward). 
> ap_proxy_create_worker() fills the worker->id and they use 
> ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share().e really need a shared information 
> for those?

I already answered that to you ;)

The rest of the code doesn't differentiate the worker types,
so it is presumed that the worker has a share.
Sure you can use the malloc for the share, but then you will
have no track of data transfers on those workers.

May I ask why is that such a problem?


View raw message