On Feb 14, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
Yeah that was my thought. I guess you pass around the array of
servers.
Just remove (or mark as N/A) from the list and/or reorder it. At
the end,
core proxy picks whatever is in index 0 (possibly walking the list
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Februar 2008 14:05
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On Feb 14, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Akins, Brian wrote:
Yeah that was my thought. I guess you pass
On Feb 15, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Februar 2008 14:05
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
Well, right now all it does is say give me the best worker
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Akins, Brian
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Februar 2008 16:44
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On 2/15/08 8:13 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Any specific reason why we need to add an hook
On 2/15/08 8:13 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Any specific reason why we need to add an hook here and why this cannot be
done by the existing provider (interface). I am scared of adding another
level of indirection here if it is not really needed and things can be
On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 2/15/08 8:13 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Any specific reason why we need to add an hook here and why this
cannot be
done by the existing provider (interface). I am scared of adding
another
level of
On 2/15/08 11:03 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My main point is that I want to avoid
using both hook and provider if not really needed, as it
Agreed. Was just stating my preference. As long as it's easy to use, I
have no strong feelings either way.
--
Brian Akins
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite... there's nothing in providers, per se, that limit
how they are *used* to be oneshot... Just ask Brad and aaa :)
+1.
I personally find the vtable interface easier to deal with - you have
a 'set' of functions
Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if we had better insight on the
actual health of the backends than a simple do they respond
to OPTIONS * and how long does it take, but that's pretty
much all we can do unless go full-on multicasting of info
ala
On 2/13/08 12:50 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was the other option as well... some sort of hearbeat
loop which updates worker status. Still, we get into the issue
with how much of how proxy connects to and communicates with
the backend to honor or work around.
An external
On 2/13/08 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And again, we're basically doubling traffic and adding
overheard (more overhead than AJP's cping/cpong) at which
point I go back into wondering whether this sort of
implementation makes sense at all...
So is the main issue we are
On 2/13/08 2:10 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The latter is relatively easy to do with the current
impl... Maybe I'll drop the ping idea and work on this ;)
+1 ;)
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On 2/13/08 6:01 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anything stopping us going the multicasting route, say by
adding a hook or hooks of some kind to proxy that keeps track of known
server states?
Multicasting doesn't work well for us, for example, because servers are
spread
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Akins, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2008 12:37
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On 2/13/08 1:09 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And again, we're basically doubling
On 2/14/08 6:44 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1. We currently have no mechanism in place that simulates these kind of
failures we experience ourselves with the backend for the client. Returning
a 500 or 503 does not cause the client to repeat the request. IMHO we
On Feb 13, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if we had better insight on the
actual health of the backends than a simple do they respond
to OPTIONS * and how long does it take, but that's pretty
much all we can do unless go full-on
On Feb 14, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 2/13/08 12:50 PM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was the other option as well... some sort of hearbeat
loop which updates worker status. Still, we get into the issue
with how much of how proxy connects to and communicates with
Akins, Brian wrote:
Someone could write a spread based module for origin status (or mysql, or
memcache, or...) if the interface was well defined and clean. The way
balancer is so hooked into proxy makes it hard to write a replacement
without hacking core proxy. In proxy it could be as simple
On 2/14/08 9:54 AM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In theory, you should be able to stack the providers, so that a balancer
module could return the list of servers to try in the right order, and
then another module could further reduce that list down to servers that
are actually up.
Akins, Brian wrote:
Yeah that was my thought. I guess you pass around the array of servers.
Just remove (or mark as N/A) from the list and/or reorder it. At the end,
core proxy picks whatever is in index 0 (possibly walking the list in case
of connection error or something).
Essentially
I've started looking at adding ping support for
mod_proxy_http to complement whats in mod_proxy_ajp...
The idea is to send a simple OPTIONS * to the backend
and hope for a reply.
The rub is that I've been working on 2 separate
implementations: one talks direct to the socket and the
other
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Akins, Brian
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 18:23
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On 2/13/08 11:07 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've started looking at adding ping support
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 17:07
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: ping for http in mod_proxy
I've started looking at adding ping support for
mod_proxy_http to complement whats in mod_proxy_ajp...
The idea is to send
On 2/13/08 11:07 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've started looking at adding ping support for
mod_proxy_http to complement whats in mod_proxy_ajp...
The idea is to send a simple OPTIONS * to the backend
and hope for a reply.
Would it be more useful to have active
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Akins, Brian
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 18:34
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On 2/13/08 12:27 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This does not help with race conditions on HTTP
On 2/13/08 12:41 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If your health checks are smarter and notice that the backend will
fail soon (e.g. because it reached 98% or 99% percent of its capacity) then
this is a different story and can be very useful.
Correct. Perhaps a weighted
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 2/13/08 11:07 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've started looking at adding ping support for
mod_proxy_http to complement whats in mod_proxy_ajp...
The idea is to send a simple OPTIONS * to the backend
and hope for a reply.
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Akins, Brian
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 18:23
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On 2/13/08 11:07 AM, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've
On 2/13/08 12:27 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This does not help with race conditions on HTTP keepalive connections.
Nevertheless active healthchecking could be useful. But on a busy site
I guess a real request will notice before the healthcheck that one backend
is
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 18:52
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Akins, Brian
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Agreed, but I doubt that it is possible with a reasonable amout of
health
check frequency to find out before the first real request falls
through,
provided that your health checks are designed to only fail if the
backend
is
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 17:07
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: ping for http in mod_proxy
I've started looking at adding ping support for
mod_proxy_http
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
We will never be able to completely avoid race conditions...
whether keepalives are in place or not.
But at least the one that comes from the keepalive timer expiring on
the backend at the same time I sent the request to it. If the
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:22:43PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
Would it be more useful to have active healthchecking to backend servers?
Ie, periodically hit a url on each origin and mark them up/down based on
response. Only send traffic to up servers. I think mod_backhand does
something
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 19:00
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Agreed, but I doubt that it is possible with a reasonable
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 18:55
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: ping for http in mod_proxy
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht
On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Sorry for my I-want-it-all-at-once approach :-). But this leaves
the problems (most notably PR 37770) open for SSL backend connection
(which would be a pity). So IMHO the socket approach would be only a
first step.
No, I want it
On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:22:43PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
Would it be more useful to have active healthchecking to backend
servers?
Ie, periodically hit a url on each origin and mark them up/down
based on
response. Only send traffic to
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if we had better insight on the
actual health of the backends than a simple do they respond
to OPTIONS * and how long does it take, but that's pretty
much all we can do unless go full-on multicasting of info
ala mod_backhand... At least the
39 matches
Mail list logo
