Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 76.96.62.48 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: Plea for eyes (and votes) on STATUS proposals
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <50FC5A03.9000600@primary.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:26:40 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <15810258-9390-41E7-AC62-5689BCA021F2@jaguNET.com>
References: <D2A71E46-037F-4773-91CC-301DBAEAA19D@jaguNET.com>
 <52211CD5-B66D-458C-8B93-3704E9753F4B@jaguNET.com>
 <50FC5A03.9000600@primary.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


On Jan 20, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DRuggeri@primary.net> wrote:

> 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.
> 

I think we can do a simple log when we are persisting...

> 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?
> 

Disabling BalancerInherit is only needed when using the
Balancer Manager and only if there are conflicts between
a Balancer in the top-level server and a vhost. With BI On,
if a balancer is defined at the top level, then vhosts A
and B get their own individual copy. But when using the Balancer
Manager, it may be difficult or impossible to affect change in
the balancer you want. If you use BM to change the Balancer
of the top-level server, those changes do not get applied to
the vhosts that had inherited them when httpd was 1st started.
This can be confusing.

Having BI Off ensures that:

  1. All Balancers must be explicitly defined for whatever
     vhosts are using them
  2. All changes on those Balancers affect ONLY that specific
     server.