On 10/6/2010 5:51 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > On 10/5/2010 8:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 10/5/2010 5:41 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >>> All; >>> With the talk about a 2.2.17 coming soon, I would very much like to get >>> the remaining >>> requisite votes and implementation of the patch (48939 - in STATUS >>> currently) I had >>> submitted for inclusion. I know a lot of folks are rather busy these days, >>> but I was >>> hoping I could draw attention to this again in hopes of making the 2.2.17 >>> release. >>> >>> P.S. >>> I would love to include details of this patch in my ApacheConNA 2010 >>> session as it >>> helps address some of the shortfalls the intelligence shortfalls. >> Just as a suggestion, most of us don't memorize numbers (... for example, I >> can't >> remember my own kids cell phone numbers, my phone does so for me.) >> >> So when someone want eyeballs on an issue, please remind us the subject, and >> if >> it is not too lengthy, attach the patch. Consider that sometimes our chance >> to >> react to your email is in the air, devoid of network access, and we are just >> trying to plow through our email queue offline. >> >> All that said, trawick, niq and wrowe have all reviewed this specific >> backport, >> and it is in the queue to be applied to 2.2. > > William; > Understood - I was too busy repeating myself in the last sentence I didn't > think to > provide more details. I also must have misread STATUS when I checked on this > the other > day. Thank you for the response. > > On a different note, I recall you brought the topic up about worker > acquiescence in a > planned maintenance situation. I am not sure if folks had a chance to review > what I > brought up, but I have submitted a patch to do this. However, I would really > prefer input > on the patch as I am not 100% sure it is ready for proposal in STATUS. Also > because, > technically, one could set the redirect route for the worker and force its > traffic > elsewhere (works fine in a two node situation, but distorts load distribution > if there are > more). > > Bug URL > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 > > Patch notes: > I used a constant called PROXY_WORKER_NOLBFACTOR in mod_proxy.h and changed > the atoi call during configuration to strtol since atoi. I did this because > the > atoi call returns 0 both during error situations and when the proper value to > return is 0. Also, the existing checks had to be refactored a little since (at > least on the SUN c compiler) an uninitialized integer is the same as `0'. > Aside > from that, only the bybusiness algorithm had to be modified to avoid a divide > by zero error.
This is precisely the behavior I want, but I'm not in a position to review this quickly enough for it to make 2.2.17, there are some big fish still to fry for the release. I'll add a third pair of eyeballs if someone else can look at this!
