I've reviewed the other patch https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 and I had a similar idea, wondering if the route-only intent would happen if I tried to set lbfactor=0 but it only allowed values 1-100 and I worried about the complexity of changing the lbmethod formulae so using a separate status code seemed cleaner. It's a bit of a magic value, but an intuitive one I think. On the user surface lbfactor=0 requires less change than my ROUTE_ONLY to the configuration and balancer-manager but it needs some documentation to clarify the intent.
I also attached a patch to https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 for the trunk, but since I'm having trouble with the overall compile it's "in theory". Please forgive compile issues, but I wanted to at least share the thought and will update when I can verify a compile and test run. In the end, either solution can work, and my hope is that multiple attempts at the same goal make a stronger case to bring the functionality to the 2.2.x stream for people to enjoy sooner rather than later. Oh, and thanks for all who contribute to this common good. I finally had an opportunity to contribute back to Apache httpd after using it for many years. If it contributes to either idea of lbfactor=0 or ROUTE_ONLY making it to the trunk and 2.2.x then it's certainly worth it. If there isn't documentation changes for the lbfactor=0 I could take a stab at that if it's the chosen solution. \|/- Keith Mashinter [email protected] ________________________________ From: Daniel Ruggeri <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:27:23 PM Subject: Re: id=51247 Enhance mod_proxy and _balancer with worker status flag to only accept sticky session routes On 5/24/2011 9:18 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I like the concept... will review. > > PS: Most patches should be against trunk. We fold into trunk, > test and only then propose for backport for 2.2.x > > > On May 23, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Keith Mashinter wrote: > >> I've added a patch to the proxy/balancer to allow for route-only workers are >> only enabled for sticky session routes, allowing for an even more graceful >> fade-out of a server than making its lbfactor=1 compared to lbfactor=100 for >> others. >> >> Please reply/vote if you also think it's useful. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 >> This enhancement, actually SVN Patched against 2.2.19, provides a worker >> status >> flag to set a proxy worker as only accepting requests with sticky session >> routes, e.g. only accept requests with a .route such as Cookie >> JSESSIONID=xxx.tc2. >> ... > > I think there are two patches available to do the same thing - sorry for not following up on this sooner. I brought this up in conversation with Bill on this list back in October and haven't dug into it since. I attached the patch to a bug opened by Cameron Stokes https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 I agree that this functionality would be nice to have but am agnostic as to which method accomplishes this :) They both seem to take different routes to get to the same goal. Jim, if you wouldn't mind reviewing both and suggesting one to be cleaned up for a patch generated against trunk. I'm happy to volunteer the effort to adjust my patch or at least take care of that bug that's out there still. -- -- Daniel Ruggeri
