httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Ruggeri <DRugg...@primary.net>
Subject Re: Plea for eyes (and votes) on STATUS proposals
Date Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:56:35 GMT
On 1/17/2013 6:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> *ping* :)
>
> (yeah, I am kinda pushing/hoping for the balancer
> stuff to be in 2.4.4 in time for ACNA13)


BalancerPersist:
Tested fine and works as expected (+1)
Side note.... A lot of folks look at the configuration file as the
canonical source for how the server is configured. With dynamic changes
persisted, aspects of the configuration can be incorrect. Seems like a
lot of work, but it may be worth considering a patch to WARN if the conf
vs restored configs differ.


BalancerInherit:
Bug https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52402 hampers
testing of "BalancerInherit On" case. Bug notes imply that current 2.4
branch should have a fix for balancer at server level with many vhosts,
but no one really calls out which commit should fix it so I can confirm.
Tested with current 2.4.x branch w/ proxypassinherit.patch only...
Before giving a vote, I'd like to be able to confirm that balancers at
the server level work again. What patch is needed for this?

Small note: This seemed to have no effect on ProxyPass statement
inheritance from server level to vhosts when BalancerInherit was set to
Off. Docs seems to imply that it controls ProxyPass workers just the
same. Maybe docs just need to be more clear? Instead of "ProxyPassed
balancers/workers" maybe say "BalancerMember"?

Also, I think there should be more info about the noted inconsistencies
for server-defined balancers/proxypass statements. A good example would
be that the persist patch would not work on server-defined balancers if
changes are made in the vhost. Other than that, I'm not sure what other
inconsistencies and problems would be expected so it's probably worth
warning server admins in docs.

--
Daniel Ruggeri


Mime
View raw message