On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 07 Feb 2018, at 7:04 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > These are fixed shm strings, IIRC? How is a balancer name >256 > characters usable in anything but automated strings, and the example > given by Dirk uses nowhere near 256 chars. > > > We’re using automated strings. > > The balancer name is a URL, the URL contains a hostname, the hostname length > is governed by RFC1035. The hostname needs to be at least 256 (255 plus > null), and therefore the URL needs to be at least 255 plus extra to cover > the rest of the URL, which given we allow 8192 as an URL length elsewhere in > the server, we should actually allow 8196 byte URLs, therefore 8192 byte > names. > > From a diagnostics/debugging perspective, nothing is conveyed in a > balancer name > 256 (realistically, >80, because it is a single token, > but lets be consistent...) that the human can benefit from. > > In the automated configuration case, at some point, you devolve too > much extra data down to a UUID that will be distinct, and be done with > it, much as Dirk's example illustrates. > > > In our automated configuration case we have a system with a name, and we > want an Apache load balancer to expose an URL on that system with that name. > The name of that system is not under our control.
But there is no argument for a name identifier >255 characters ... the cited RFC and the filesystem and so many others use this as the conventional constraint on an identifier. Why double that?
