httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jean-frederic clere <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy / mod_proxy_balancer
Date Tue, 05 May 2009 15:13:53 GMT
Mladen Turk wrote:
> 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?

I am trying to get the worker->id and the scoreboard associated logic 
moved in the reset() when using a balancer, those workers need a 
different handling if we want to have a shared information area for them.



View raw message