On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Eissing
> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 02.02.2018 um 15:42 schrieb Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
>>> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jim Jagielski
>>>>> [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Februar 2018 15:15
>>>>> An: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org> Betreff: Re: New ServerUID
>>>>> directive
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? If it is designed to not change between restarts then there
>>>>> are much easier ways to be unique, which it kinda already is,
>>>>> considering the actual structs being used.
>>>
>>> I don't know what "easier ways" you are thinking about, the one
>>> proposed here is not that complicated IMO.
>>> In any case the method we are currently using in mod_proxy_lb *is*
>>> changing accross restarts, mainly because of the line number.
>>> What if you add/remove a line before the <VirtualHost>?
>>> At least for graceful restarts, I think it shall not change, SHMs
>>> should be reused.
>>
>> Is it a hash across the config record of a server what would give
>> the desired behaviour?
>
> Yes, a hash using the minimal (IP[:port])* + ServerName, which is what
> matters to select a vhost in the first place (maybe it's missing
> ServerAlias), and what's done in this patch.
> Should two vhosts have the same hash, only the first one will ever
> handle requests.

But I still think that the ServerUID directive is useful because the
above are not immutable for the lifetime of a vhost either.
That would address all needs, IMO.

Reply via email to