On 07/30/2009 09:27 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 07/30/2009 05:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Author: jfclere
Date: Thu Jul 30 15:37:22 2009
New Revision: 799334
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=799334&view=rev
Log:
Add the file logic for the handler.
(Next step add the slotmem logic for the multicast socket).
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartmonitor.c
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartmonitor.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartmonitor.c?rev=799334&r1=799333&r2=799334&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartmonitor.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartmonitor.c Thu Jul 30 15:37:22
2009
+++ CUT +++
+
+ if (apr_table_get(hbt, "lastseen")) {
+ node.seen = atoi(apr_table_get(hbt, "lastseen"));
+ }
+ seen = fage + node.seen;
+ apr_file_printf(fp, "%s&ready=%u&busy=%u&lastseen=%u\n",
+ ip, node.ready, node.busy, (unsigned int)
seen);
The above seems to be a lot of parsing back and forth for just updating the
lastseen parameter.
Couldn't we just keep the complete line until the 'lastseen=' and just update
the number afterwards?
If only mod_heartmonitor writes there yes otherwise no.
Probably looking for lastseen= and digits should be enough.
Or is the order of ready, busy and lastseen not defined?
If the order is defined we could use a structure but we would loose all
the flexibility the actual format allows.
+ }
+
+ rv = apr_file_rename(path, ctx->storage_path, pool);
We need to consider that multiple handlers run in parallel in different threads
/ processes.
If we are in bad luck this can lock out node A as in the following example.
Node A and Node B sent the request at the same time and the handlers processing
these requests are
running fairly in parallel.
If the handler processing Node B does the renaming one tick later then the
handler processing
Node A then the update of Node A is lost. If this happens over and over again
Node A is believed
to be dead although it is not.
I fear you need to use global locks here to avoid this.
Yes, I will work of that asap.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
