Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CBCD1E8F6 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54675 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jan 2013 20:57:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 54607 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jan 2013 20:57:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 54598 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jan 2013 20:57:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:57:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of DRuggeri@primary.net designates 216.87.38.221 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.87.38.221] (HELO mail1.primary.net) (216.87.38.221) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:57:00 +0000 Received: from home.simonrage.com ([216.114.77.126]:12753 helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mail1.primary.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx1wT-0002wN-BQ for dev@httpd.apache.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:56:39 -0600 Message-ID: <50FC5A03.9000600@primary.net> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:56:35 -0600 From: Daniel Ruggeri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Plea for eyes (and votes) on STATUS proposals References: <52211CD5-B66D-458C-8B93-3704E9753F4B@jaguNET.com> In-Reply-To: <52211CD5-B66D-458C-8B93-3704E9753F4B@jaguNET.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ACL-Warn: X-The email account used to send this email was: DRuggeri@primary.net X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "mail1.primary.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: 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. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 8.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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