2014 14:00
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
You are right :(. Fix attached. Order of errstatuses should not be a
problem. Its values are checked against r-status to determine status
code on which is balancer worker marked as in error.
Guess
As also noted, the whole aspect of using the Balancer Manager
factors into this as well...
IMO, the whole merging stuff is getting more and more
fragile, and adding more to it makes it even worse.
On Dec 17, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/16/2014 01:57 PM, Jim
Isn't this already addressed/handled with the BalancerInherit directive??
On Dec 10, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I've found out that following configuration does not work as expected:
Proxy balancer://a
...
/Proxy
VirtualHost *:80
ProxyPass /
Why? If a balancer is used just in a Vhost, then it should be
defined just in that Vhost. I can't see adding complexity and
workarounds to hack around what is a simple config error.
On Dec 10, 2014, at 7:52 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
didn't look at the patch yet, but
On 12/16/2014 01:57 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Isn't this already addressed/handled with the BalancerInherit directive??
No, it isn't. The BalancerInherit only says that the balancers from the
main config will be copied to vhost context *after* the config_tree is
processed. And the word
On 12/11/2014 03:05 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014 14:40
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
On 12/11/2014 08:47 AM, Jan Kaluža
On 12/12/2014 09:44 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/11/2014 03:05 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014 14:40
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost
Hi Jan,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 03:05 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
Looks fine in general. Details:
I hope I've finally fixed everything now :), see the attached patch please.
Aren't the following parameters missing for
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO there should be a deep copy here, that's another balancer, with
its own mutexes, own members having their own parameters, own
sockets...
Oh, got it now...
If this is expected, the admin can still declare a new
On 12/12/2014 12:08 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Hi Jan,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 03:05 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
Looks fine in general. Details:
I hope I've finally fixed everything now :), see the attached patch please.
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
On 12/11/2014 08:47 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 08:21 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/10/2014 02:21 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 01:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
But this way we lose the base ones
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Dezember 2014 14:00
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
You are right :(. Fix attached. Order of errstatuses should not be a
problem. Its
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Dezember 2014 14:00
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
You are right :(. Fix attached. Order of errstatuses should not be a
problem. Its values are checked against r-status to determine status
code on which is balancer worker marked as in error.
Guess it is fine now :-)
+1
Thanks you both
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Thanks you both, that one was painful :(.
Thank *you* for the improvement!
Most of my remarks were noise, sorry if you wasted time with them...
Yann.
On 12/10/2014 08:21 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/10/2014 02:21 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 01:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
But this way we lose the base ones that are not touched in the virtual host and
e.g. are only used by rewriterules.
So we should transfer the
On 12/11/2014 08:47 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 08:21 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/10/2014 02:21 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 01:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
But this way we lose the base ones that are not touched in the
virtual host and e.g. are only used
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014 14:40
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
On 12/11/2014 08:47 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 08:21 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote
Hi,
I've found out that following configuration does not work as expected:
Proxy balancer://a
...
/Proxy
VirtualHost *:80
ProxyPass / balancer://a stickysession=JSESSIONID|jsessionid
/VirtualHost
In this case, two proxy_balancers are created. The first one in Proxy
section in the main
Hi,
didn't look at the patch yet, but the workaround for this is usually
to use ProxySet in the Proxy block.
I agree that it would be nice to have these parameters merged, though.
Regards,
Yann.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I've found out that
always worry me a little bit from performance point of view.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2014 13:26
To: httpd
Subject: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
Hi,
I've found out
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
Isn't the config merge on a critical path with every request?
I don't think so, my understanding is that the *server* config merge
is before post_config.
Regards,
Yann.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
didn't look at the patch yet, but the workaround for this is usually
to use ProxySet in the Proxy block.
This is not (at all) equivalent to a merge, please ignore this...
Regards,
Yann.
. From this point of view, double
for loop should be OK.
Regards,
Jan Kaluza
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kaluža [mailto:jkal...@redhat.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2014 13:26
To: httpd
Subject: [PATCH] Balancers, VirtualHost and ProxyPass
Hi,
I've found out
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/10/2014 01:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
Isn't the config merge on a critical path with every request? So double
for loops always worry me a little bit from performance point of view.
I think that
On 12/10/2014 02:50 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/10/2014 01:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
Isn't the config merge on a critical path with every request? So double
for loops always worry me a little bit from
On 12/10/2014 02:21 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 12/10/2014 01:49 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
But this way we lose the base ones that are not touched in the virtual host
and e.g. are only used by rewriterules.
So we should transfer the base ones to the merged array in any case and
27 matches
Mail list logo
