Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of DRuggeri@primary.net
 designates 216.87.38.220 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <50FD8750.4010502@primary.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:22:08 -0600
From: Daniel Ruggeri <DRuggeri@primary.net>
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: <D2A71E46-037F-4773-91CC-301DBAEAA19D@jaguNET.com>
 <52211CD5-B66D-458C-8B93-3704E9753F4B@jaguNET.com>
 <50FC5A03.9000600@primary.net>
 <15810258-9390-41E7-AC62-5689BCA021F2@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <15810258-9390-41E7-AC62-5689BCA021F2@jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 1/21/2013 8:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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.

Understood - but with the bug noted earlier, isn't it impossible to have
a balancer at the server level make its way into vhosts any more because
of....
[Mon Jan 21 12:06:06.432596 2013] [proxy_balancer:debug] [pid 22337:tid
3075496144] mod_proxy_balancer.c(816): AH01184: Doing workers create:
balancer://mycluster (s5aac9634_mycluster), 480, 2
[Mon Jan 21 12:06:06.432605 2013] [slotmem_shm:debug] [pid 22337:tid
3075496144] mod_slotmem_shm.c(632): AH02293:
slotmem(/usr/local/apache/logs/experimental/slotmem-shm-s5aac9634_mycluster.shm)
grab failed. Num 2/num_free 0
[Mon Jan 21 12:06:06.432612 2013] [proxy_balancer:emerg] [pid 22337:tid
3075496144] (22)Invalid argument: AH01186: worker slotmem_grab failed
[Mon Jan 21 12:06:06.432637 2013] [:emerg] [pid 22337:tid 3075496144]
AH00020: Configuration Failed, exiting

This error happens any time one creates a balancer at server level and
it attempts pushing it down to the vhosts. If I add the BalancerInherit
patch, there is no change until 'BalancerInherit Off'. With it disabled,
at least it starts.... but of course, none of the vhosts have that
balancer anymore.

So.... the patch itself seems to work, yes. I was hoping to draw more
attention to the issue of not being able to define balancers at the
server level anymore, though. IMHO, that's a much bigger problem. So is
that bug supposed to be fixed, or do we roll 2.4.4 without this
functionality? I guess it's technically not a regression if it's always
been broken.

--
Daniel Ruggeri