>>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Envoyé : lundi 3 septembre 2007 10:35 >>À : [email protected] >>Objet : Re: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV >> >> Gesendet: Montag, 3. September 2007 10:05 >> An: [email protected] >> Betreff: RE: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers >> >> >> Persistent backend connection when proxying using RewriteRule is >> exactly what I am trying to do. >> >> AFAIU there is no way to achieve persistent connections with the >> default worker because (correct me if I am wrong) a worker is >> associated with a single proxy_conn_pool and the proxy_conn_pool is >> associated with a single address, and in the case of the default >> worker the address may be different each time the worker is used. >> >> This means that the only way to make these backend connections >> persistent is to create at least one worker per backend. Right? > >Correct. >
Some questions: 1. Since the backend address is not known to the configuration, isn't the only way to create a worker for "dynamic" backends to create them as they occur ? 2. Does what I suggest seem like a viable/sensible solution ? Should it be supplemented with a setting to activate/de-activate the on-the-fly creation of new workers ? 3. Any idea why I end up with a mutex problem and the aforementioned error, or how to go about debugging it ? BR -ascs
