Hi Michal, On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:13:01PM +0100, Michal wrote: > Hello! > Any news in this topic? Is there anything wrong with my patch?
So I checked it but it still has the problem of propagating absolute weights, which, as I explained earlier, will break lots of setups. I tend to think that doing it only for relative weight changes could be OK (provided this is properly documented in the "track" and "agent-check" keyword sections). The principle of the relative weight change is what most users are seeking : the server wants to say "I'm running my backups now, please cut my load in half" or "I'm swapping, I estimate that by shrinking my load by 33% it will be OK". Regardless of the configured weigths in different farms, we could propagate this relative weight change. Also I'm seeing that your patch only propagates to the first layer of tracking servers, and stops there without updating the next layer, you need a recursive propagation here. Last, if you implement this, it's absolutely mandatory that the same is done for the CLI since the CLI is the only way to fix the bad effects of wrong agent changes. Thus having a function dedicated to propagating relative weight changes would help, it would solve the case for the CLI and for the agent. I continue to think that such a change will definitely reintroduce problems that took several years to get rid of, but hopefully with proper documentation that can be worked around. Ie when a use complains that the weight change applied to a server seems to regularly be ignored, it probably is because of the fact that they're tracking another server whose weight changes. Thanks, Willy
