-------- In message <[email protected]>, Nils Goroll writes: >On 28/08/14 11:03, Martin Blix Grydeland wrote: > >> Having a nanny thread for this part is in my opinion too much complexity for >> little gain. > >I should have mentioned this in my first reply: > >The main benefit I'd see is that currently closing BE conns depends on backend >requests being issued, so for instance no close will happen on a sick backends.
So this discussion raises several questions: 1. Should we default to having a health-check ? 2. Should that thread also nanny the open connections ? (I have some long range points about this related to HTTP/2 but we can disregard them for now) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
