On 5/25/2011 7:49 AM, Keith Mashinter wrote: > I've reviewed the other > patch https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841 and I > had a similar idea, wondering if the route-only intent would happen if > I tried to set lbfactor=0 but it only allowed values 1-100 and I > worried about the complexity of changing the lbmethod formulae so > using a separate status code seemed cleaner. It's a bit of a magic > value, but an intuitive one I think. On the user surface lbfactor=0 > requires less change than my ROUTE_ONLY to the configuration and > balancer-manager but it needs some documentation to clarify the intent. > > I also attached a patch to > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247 for the > trunk, but since I'm having trouble with the overall compile it's "in > theory". Please forgive compile issues, but I wanted to at least > share the thought and will update when I can verify a compile and test > run.
Jim/Bill/others who have mentioned this; Just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that I'm waiting on direction between these two options. I can quickly roll a trunk or 2.2 patch for either of these if there is consensus for either mechanism. Both will allow for taking a server offline after bleeding traffic away by means of sending only existing sessions to said server. The difference is in approach: 48841 Allowing zero as lbfactor tweaks the math a bit for the lbmethods 51247 Adds a Route-Only radio box to balancer manager and a constant in the code to recognize the change -- -- Daniel Ruggeri
