httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Worker states for balancer members
Date Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:30:30 GMT
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> I WAS thinking about basically "making" HC_FAIL STOPPED because
> that mode can only be set/cleared during configuration (the
> balancer-manager doesn't provide for changing that bit) and so
> for the life of me I can't figure out how or why anyone would be
> using that status since it never changes...
>
> Maybe we can just say that STOPPED is there for potential
> 3rd party uses and be done w/ it :)

That's what I started to respond before yours :)
Pasting below...

Some third-party (proxy_)modules may use DISABLED/STOPPED for their
own purpose, but I wouldn't mind if the health check DISABLEs or STOPs
a worker under them, these are httpd #defined yet...

So I would have been for health check to reuse STOPPED for its own
purpose (since DISABLED is exposed via the balancer-manager, we likely
can't change its behaviour).

But DISABLED/STOPPED are also configurable with BalancerMember's
status=+D/S, and ~documented~ :)
  D: Worker is disabled and will not accept any requests.
  S: Worker is administratively stopped.
Here both really mean "not started", so status=+S workers shouldn't be
started later by the health check on its own, which prevents STOPPED
reuse too.

Thus, as you suggest, we need a different a new name for health check
(HC_FAIL), so why join the two others (with a nice trick btw)?

We probably need to keep their current/synonym meaning in httpd (at
least in 2.4.x), and maybe we can let third party modules play with
them distinctly after all :)

Mime
View raw message