: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
Thanks for the pointer. It is missing because I removed it by accident
when excluding some debug code I setup locally for analysing the issue
from the patch I posted. I will post a proper version and if you agree put
it in STATUS for 2.2.x
, 25. August 2015 10:23
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
On 08/24/2015 11:12 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com
On 08/24/2015 11:12 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
2) Increment proxy_lb_workers according to number of workers in balancer
when using ProxyPass /foobar/
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/24/2015 11:12 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
I tested the below which seems to work.
Hm, this reserves the slots in scoreboard even when the balancers are not
used in the virtualhost, or am I wrong?
Correct, but there
Of course it requires a minor bump.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 11:39
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
How about the following patch? It uses
;/* The server_rec where this configuration was
created in */
};
/*
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 10:48
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
I think
-Original Message-
From: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 14:58
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
Now the more complete patch (including bump):
Index: modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
...@redhat.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 10:23
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
On 08/24/2015 11:12 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jan
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/25/2015 11:39 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
How about the following patch? It uses the server_rec of the server that
originally created the configuration item.
This looks like good strategy. I've verified
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
On 08/25/2015 11:39 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
How about the following patch? It uses the server_rec of the server that
originally created the configuration item.
This looks like good strategy
, Vodafone Group
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 11:39
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
How about the following patch? It uses the server_rec of the server that
originally created the configuration item.
Index: modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
this
configuration was created in */
};
/*
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 10:48
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
I think the current
-Original Message-
From: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
Sent: Dienstag, 25. August 2015 14:41
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: PR 58267: Regression in 2.2.31 caused by r1680920
Thanks for the pointer. It is missing because I removed it by accident
when excluding some debug code I setup
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
I think the current state of 2.2.31 breaks existing 2.2.x configuration prior
to 2.2.31.
Prior to 2.2.31 you could do the following:
Proxy Balancer://proxy1
BalancerMember ajp://127.0.0.1:7001
Hi,
unfortunately, the r1680920 brought undesired behavior described in PR
58267 to 2.2.x. The bug is well described in the PR, so I won't describe
it in this email.
I have tried to debug it and I think the problem is that we use also
server-server_hostname to compute the hash in the
On 08/24/2015 04:47 PM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
Hi,
unfortunately, the r1680920 brought undesired behavior described in PR
58267 to 2.2.x. The bug is well described in the PR, so I won't describe
it in this email.
I have tried to debug it and I think the problem is that we use also
Hi Jan,
I was working on the same issue... and was going to implement 2) :)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
Now, the root of the error is that the scoreboard size is static (set to
proxy_lb_workers + PROXY_DYNAMIC_BALANCER_LIMIT), but it is not
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jan Kaluža jkal...@redhat.com wrote:
2) Increment proxy_lb_workers according to number of workers in balancer
when using ProxyPass /foobar/ Balancer://foobar/ in the VirtualHost. The
18 matches
Mail list logo
