httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: BalancerMembers (workers): stopped and disabled
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:27:28 GMT


On 01/26/2016 08:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> My thoughts are that STOPPED means that health checks won't be
> done, nor will retry be done. It means stopped-and-won't-automatically-
> restart. Disabled is currently-offline-due-to-can't-be-accessed
> and so health checks and retries will be done on those.
> 
> Or:
> 
>  o Disabled: automatically detected as unavailable; will
>              automatically re-enabled when the server is
>              successfully retried/checked

How this this related to the error state of a worker?

Regards

RĂ¼diger

> 
>  o Stopped:  Administratively stopped. Will never automatically
>              be re-enabled; must be explicitly re-enabled.
> 
> 
>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 1:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>> What semantics do you suggest for each?
>>
>> True that they have been effectively identical (and redundant) so far...
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2016 12:41, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Currently, the idea and "logic" associated w/ stopped and disabled
>> workers are kind of similar. There is a higher concept that one is
>> more 'admin' controlled and the other more 'autonomous' controlled,
>> but we really don't enforce any sort of conditions related to that.
>>
>> I think it's time we start doing that, and use stopped and disabled
>> for similar but distinctly different conditions...
>>
>> comments?
>>
>> PS: yeah, this all comes about due to how the health-check module
>>     should interact w/ those states...
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message