httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname ( too long
Date Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:39:29 GMT
On 07 Feb 2018, at 7:04 PM, William A Rowe Jr <> wrote:

> These are fixed shm strings, IIRC? How is a balancer name >256
> characters usable in anything but automated strings, and the example
> given by Dirk uses nowhere near 256 chars.

We’re using automated strings.

The balancer name is a URL, the URL contains a hostname, the hostname length is governed by
RFC1035. The hostname needs to be at least 256 (255 plus null), and therefore the URL needs
to be at least 255 plus extra to cover the rest of the URL, which given we allow 8192 as an
URL length elsewhere in the server, we should actually allow 8196 byte URLs, therefore 8192
byte names.

> From a diagnostics/debugging perspective, nothing is conveyed in a
> balancer name > 256 (realistically, >80, because it is a single token,
> but lets be consistent...) that the human can benefit from.
> In the automated configuration case, at some point, you devolve too
> much extra data down to a UUID that will be distinct, and be done with
> it, much as Dirk's example illustrates.

In our automated configuration case we have a system with a name, and we want an Apache load
balancer to expose an URL on that system with that name. The name of that system is not under
our control.


View raw message