httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Talking about proxy workers
Date Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:13:53 GMT
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de> wrote:
> On 05.08.2010 21:30, Eric Covener wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/httpd/trunk/manual/mod/mod_proxy.html.en#workers
>>
>> "A direct worker is usually configured using any of ProxyPass,
>> ProxyPassMatch or ProxySet."
>
>> I don't know much about Proxy, but can this hammer home a bit more
>> that these directives create a new worker implicitly based on [some
>> parts of?] the destination URL?
>
> Good point. I updated the patch and HTML page to stress the identification
> of workers by their URL.
>
>> And what happens when there's
>> overlap?
>
> There's a warning box at the end of the Workers section talking about that.
> I slightly rephrased it to also contain the trm "overlap".
>
> New patch:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/mod_proxy_docs_workers-v2.patch

nits:

+      There are two builtin workers, the default forward proxy worker and the

"built-in"

+      optionally included in a <directive module="mod_proxy">Proxy</directive>
+      directive.

How about using "container" at the end instead of "directive"? (shrug)

+      ................. Direct workers can use connection pooling,
+      HTTP Keep-Alive and individual configurations for example
+      for timeouts.

(dumb question: what's the diff between keepalive and connection
pooling?  reuse for one client vs. reuse for any client?)

That last part sounds a little awkward.  Maybe something like this:

A number of processing options can be specified for direct workers,
including connection pooling, HTTP Keep-Alive, and I/O timeout values.

+      ........ Which options are available is depending on the
+      protocol used by the worker (and given in the origin server URL).
+      Available protocols include <code>ajp</code>, <code>fcgi</code>,
+      <code>ftp</code>, <code>http</code> and <code>scgi</code>.</p>
+

The set of options available for the worker depends on the protocol,
which is specified in
the origin server URL.  Available protocols include ....


+      <p>A balancer worker is created, if its worker URL uses

no comma

+      <p>Worker sharing happens, if the worker URLs overlap. More precisely
+      if the URL of some worker is a leading substring of the URL of another
+      worker defined later in the configuration file.

<p>Worker sharing happens if the worker URLs overlap, which occurs when
the URL of some worker is a leading substring of the URL of another
worker defined later in the configuration file.

+      In this case the later worker isn't actually created. Instead
the previous
+      worker is used. The benefit is, that there is only one connection pool,
+      so connections are more often reused. Unfortunately all the
configuration attributes
+      given explicitly for the later worker overwrite the respective
configuration
+      of the previous worker!</p>


This sounds like a discussion of pros and cons.  There's no pro, since
the user didn't intend to configure it this way, right?

Mime
View raw message