httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy ping and 100-continue (was Re: NOTE: Intent to T&R 2.2.6 tomorrow)
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:52:19 GMT
This is a once-per-request query, so a note shouldn't be a bad thing.
But I'm wondering if we need a multi-state (and eventually, fold that
into 2.6/3.0 req_req instead)?

Many users have requested that mod_proxy honor -configured- proxypass
backends' 100 responses and defer the 100 response to the client until
the backend is known to be alive.

For lots of reasons, this shouldn't be the default behavior, notably
the lag between the proxy and backend servers.  But for an integrated
app hosting environment, the lag should be minimal and the stress on
httpd of reading-to-discard large post/upload sorts of requests when
auth is required or some other fatal error is encountered would be

So we have the typical httpd-originated 100-continue vs. a
backend-originated 100-continue, and I'm not sure how the delta
between current-default and rfc behavior might factor into a third

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Yann Ylavic <> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>> Is there any way to accomplish w/o using notes? It's not that
>> they are especially slow, it's just that they aren't that fast
>> and, iirc, this could be a tight path.
> There surely is, but we can't use the proxy_conn_rec for this (it may
> change between calls for the load-balancing case).
> We could define ap_proxy_create_hdrbrgd_ex() which takes the saved
> "proxy-interim-response" env as argument (looked up once by the
> caller), or add a new request_rec field (...), but I think it's a bit
> (at least) overkill for a path where, anyway, expecting (and probably
> waiting for) a 100-continue will take much more time than a few
> apr_table ops.
> The simpler solution, IMHO, is to simply never forward 100-continue
> responses, the client has already got one when this happens.
> I don't really understand the purpose of "proxy-interim-response" ==
> "RFC" anyhow ("suppress" should be the only behaviour), I even think
> it is not RFC compliant (at least useless) to send multiple
> 100-continue...
> As said earlier, by pre-fetching the request body, mod_proxy can't be
> an expectation proxy: it should comply to the client part of the RFC
> wrt to the origin (which is the case), and to the server part of the
> RFC wrt the client (which "proxy-interim-response" breaks).

View raw message