On 01/04/2022 08:47, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 31/03/2022 12:59, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 3/31/22 12:34 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
Am 31.03.2022 um 11:55 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
On 3/31/22 11:11 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 3/30/22 4:42 PM, jfcl...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jfclere
Date: Wed Mar 30 14:42:14 2022
New Revision: 1899390
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1899390&view=rev
Log:
Add WorkerBalancerGrowth. To allow creation of workers
to dynamically added balancers.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES?rev=1899390&r1=1899389&r2=1899390&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES [utf-8] Wed Mar 30 14:42:14 2022
@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
-*- coding: utf-8 -*-
Changes with Apache 2.5.1
+ *) mod_proxy: Add WorkerBalancerGrowth to allow adding workers to
+ balancer created dynamically or via "empty" <Proxy balancer://../>
+ [Jean-Frederic Clere]
I am not sure why this is needed. You can already do this via
<Proxy balancer://somebalancer/ growth=10>
</Proxy>
Or
<Proxy balancer://somebalancer/>
ProxySet growth=10
</Proxy>
FYI: Travis trunk also fails almost completely. Does not seem to
accept a proxy configuration.
This is because the if
+ if (!ap_strchr_c(conf->p, ':'))
+ return apr_pstrcat(cmd->pool, thiscmd->name,
+ "> arguments are not supported for non
url.",
+ NULL);
should not return with an error, but just encapsulate the remainder of
the block. And I think the further
return apr_pstrcat are also wrong.
But as said I am not sure about the purpose at all as you can already
do, what the patch should provide if I understand the patch
correctly.
The purpose was to be able to add a balancer in the balancer-manager
handle but that needs to pre-create the mutex and the slots for the
workers.
While looking to that I noted that:
<Proxy balancer://somebalancer/>
</Proxy>
was doing nothing, the balancer is ignored, I should I revert the patch
and add an error message if there is an empty entry like this one?
There is also the BalancerGrowth directive that does nothing else than
creating a memory slot for balancers we never add/create in the
balancer-manager, I am tempted to remove it...
Would it be better to add the missing logic? I have some pieces in
mod_proxy_cluster (https://github.com/modcluster/mod_proxy_cluster that
could use the logic.
Regards
Rüdiger
--
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
