I should add that there are two further options which have been pointed out to me:
1) Server table flag - when marked, nothing is routed to the host at all. Not as configurable as option 3, but more so than option 2. Faster than option 2 as it would be returned with existing search results and could be easily filtered on. Minor UI change only. 2) Profile parameter - when marked, nothing is routed to any host with this profile. Heavy handed, and would require additional profile parameter lookups when generating the crconfig, so it'd slow it down. No UI change. 3) deliveryservice_servers table flag - an additional column that is true by default. When desired, the user could pull up a sub-window within the delivery service configuration that would present a list of the hosts which have been assigned to the delivery service (and are not of org type). The user could deselect the desired hosts, setting the DSS routing value to false. This server would then be ignored when generating the crconfig data for that specific delivery service. This would be the most configurable option, and should be as quick as option 1, but would require the most extensive code changes. 4) Column in the “type” table. Like option 1, this would apply at the server level. 5) Column in the “profile” table. Like option 2, this would apply at the profile level. So it’s a question of which level is preferred, I suppose - delivery service, server, or profile? Any of the three will resolve the issue, but the DS level fix, while being the most complex to code and add to the UI, will create the most flexibility. The question is do we need that flexibility and do we want the added complexity which accompanies it? DG On Aug 22, 2017, at 6:22 PM, Gelinas, Derek <derek_geli...@comcast.com<mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com>> wrote: The use case is fairly specific. Suffice it to say we have reverse proxies that need configuration without being treated as potential destinations by traffic router. DG On Aug 22, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Nir Sopher <n...@qwilt.com<mailto:n...@qwilt.com><mailto:n...@qwilt.com>> wrote: Hi Derek, Could you please shade more light on the problem you are trying to solve? As I see it, option #3 is indeed more flexible - as it can work in a DS granularity. It is even more powerful when you combine it with other extensions for this table suggested in the "Drop Server -> Delivery Service assignments". However, as you describe options #1,#2 as valid options, it seems that the problem you are dealing with completely resides in the "servers" domain - as the server should have the same behavior for all delivery-services. Therefore, option #1 might be more suitable. Nir On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Gelinas, Derek <derek_geli...@comcast.com<mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com><mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com>> wrote: I'd agree with you if this was designed to drain, but this is intended as a permanent state for a pretty good long list of caches. DG On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < efrie...@cisco.com<mailto:efrie...@cisco.com><mailto:efrie...@cisco.com>> wrote: What about a modification of option 1- adding a new state per server. Instead of ADMIN_DOWN, it could be "REPORTED_DRAIN" to indicate the difference -Eric On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Gelinas, Derek <derek_geli...@comcast.com<mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com><mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com>> wrote: That's actually the workaround we're using at the moment - setting them to admin_down. That's a temporary measure, though - we want something more permanent. DG On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < efrie...@cisco.com<mailto:efrie...@cisco.com><mailto:efrie...@cisco.com>> wrote: How does your use case differ from marking a server as offline in Traffic Ops and snapshotting? Thats the easiest way I can think of to get a server in this state -Eric On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Gelinas, Derek < derek_geli...@comcast.com<mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com><mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com>> wrote: We've run across a situation in which we need certain caches to simultaneously have map rules for a delivery service, but not actually have those caches routed to when requests are made via traffic router. Essentially, this means removing the delivery service from the cache's info in the crconfig file. There's been a bit of internal debate about the best ways to do this, and I'd like to collect some opinions on the matter. 1) Server table flag - when marked, nothing is routed to the host at all. Not as configurable as option 3, but more so than option 2. Faster than option 2 as it would be returned with existing search results and could be easily filtered on. Minor UI change only. 2) Profile parameter - when marked, nothing is routed to any host with this profile. Heavy handed, and would require additional profile parameter lookups when generating the crconfig, so it'd slow it down. No UI change. 3) deliveryservice_servers table flag - an additional column that is true by default. When desired, the user could pull up a sub-window within the delivery service configuration that would present a list of the hosts which have been assigned to the delivery service (and are not of org type). The user could deselect the desired hosts, setting the DSS routing value to false. This server would then be ignored when generating the crconfig data for that specific delivery service. This would be the most configurable option, and should be as quick as option 1, but would require the most extensive code changes. Personally, I like option 3, but would very much like to hear opinions, arguments, and other options that I haven't thought of or listed here. Derek
