> Am 06.02.2018 um 16:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski <[email protected]>: > > I don't think it does.
I do not understand. I feel that I am missing something here. You're saying that the scenario does not exist or that it does not trigger the described effect? >> On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It depends on what you do now, but if it's "reload the server with any >> change before the vhost" than there is an issue. >> You'd lose SHMs, persisted files, all the vhost's balancers states... >> >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> IMO, unless there are issues/problems with what we do *now*, >>> we shouldn't be changing things... >>> >>>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 2:24 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, Stefan Eissing <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2. Does httpd core expose a VirtualHost Identifier in its API and >>>>> what would the semantic properties of such an identifier be? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it does. It's the server_rec. That contains all the info required >>>>> to determine any and all fashion of "unique" Vhost IDs. >>>> >>>> So, for balancers (slotmems) needs, how about: >>>> - All IP:port from server_addr_rec list + >>>> - ServerName + >>>> - ServerAlias(es) >>>> (i.e. hash/MD5 thereof). >>>> ? >>>> >>>> The rationale is that this is solely what determines the "election" of >>>> a server_rec for each request. >>>> All duplicates, since nothing is enforced on this in httpd (should >>>> it?), would never be elected at runtime (i.e. ignored). >>>> We may want to detect the case though, or do we blindly reuse slotmems >>>> for them (w/o any consistency checks)? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Yann. >>> >
