The more I think about this, the more I think it's not as straightforward
as I think to queue updates for a delivery service (meaning to queue
updates for all the caches employed by the ds).

For example, imagine you had a delivery service that employed 10
caches....and you removed 2 caches from the ds...then queue'd updates for
the ds.....this would queue updates for the 8 remaining caches but really
the 2 caches you removed are the ones that need the updates...

So unless told otherwise or someone has a solution to this problem (I can't
think of one currently), I'm gonna hold off on that issue.

Jeremy

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Created this issue. Would like input from more people to ensure this is a
> good idea and I'm not overlooking something...
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC-129
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, when modifying a DS, it would be useful to have an API to queue on
>> just servers relevant to that DS.
>>
>> —Eric
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Currently, you can queue updates:
>> >
>> > - for a specific server
>> > - for a specific cachegroup (all the servers in that cachegroup)
>> > - for a specific cdn (all the servers in that cdn)
>> >
>> > but you can't queue updates for:
>> >
>> > - a specific delivery service (all the servers explicitly (edges) or
>> > implicitly (mids) assigned to that DS)
>> >
>> > Does it make sense to add this functionality? At least to the API?
>> >
>> > I "think" when a delivery service change is made, it is common practice
>> to
>> > queue updates on the ENTIRE cdn that the DS belongs to. This seems like
>> it
>> > would unnecessarily queue updates for a lot of servers that don't
>> belong to
>> > the DS.
>> >
>> > I know we may move away from the queue update approach at some point but
>> > does this functionality make sense in the short term?
>> >
>> > Jeremy
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to