Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-05 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > 2. Does httpd core expose a VirtualHost Identifier in its API and > what would the semantic properties of such an identifier be? > > Yes, it does. It's the server_rec. That contains

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
IMO, unless there are issues/problems with what we do *now*, we shouldn't be changing things... > On Feb 6, 2018, at 2:24 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:38 AM, Stefan Eissing >> wrote: >> >> 2. Does httpd core expose

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
It depends on what you do now, but if it's "reload the server with any change before the vhost" than there is an issue. You'd lose SHMs, persisted files, all the vhost's balancers states... On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > IMO, unless there are issues/problems with what we d

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
With my proposal, this is lost only if IP:port(s) or ServerName/Alias(s) change, which is already a win and shouldn't change the way each balancer is bound to its vhost (i.e. a request on a vhost wouldn't be accounted/handled by a lb on another vhost). On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Yann Ylavic

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > With my proposal, this is lost only if IP:port(s) or > ServerName/Alias(s) change, which is already a win and shouldn't > change the way each balancer is bound to its vhost (i.e. a request on > a vhost wouldn't be accounted/handled by a lb on an

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> With my proposal, this is lost only if IP:port(s) or >> ServerName/Alias(s) change, which is already a win and shouldn't >> change the way each balancer is bound to its vhost (i.e. a reques

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> With my proposal, this is lost only if IP:port(s) or >>> ServerName/Alias(s) change, which is already a win and shouldn't >>> change

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
I don't think it does. > On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > It depends on what you do now, but if it's "reload the server with any > change before the vhost" than there is an issue. > You'd lose SHMs, persisted files, all the vhost's balancers states... > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Stefan Eissing
> Am 06.02.2018 um 16:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > I don't think it does. I do not understand. I feel that I am missing something here. You're saying that the scenario does not exist or that it does not trigger the described effect? >> On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:18 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-06 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > >> Am 06.02.2018 um 16:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski : >> >> I don't think it does. > > I do not understand. I feel that I am missing something here. > > You're saying that the scenario does not exist or that it does not trigger > the described

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-07 Thread Jim Jagielski
Just for fun, what is the functional difference, if any, between this very large patch, that adds lots of code, and this extremely simple diff which, from what I can tell, handles the exact defined "problem" with the original code??? Just curious if our current policy is to use a sledgehammer now

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-07 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Just for fun, what is the functional difference, if any, between this > very large patch, that adds lots of code, and this extremely simple > diff which, from what I can tell, handles the exact defined > "problem" with the original code??? Th

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-07 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Just curious if our current policy is to use a sledgehammer now > to fix what can be handled with a pair of tweezers. Btw, I also think this is a sledgehammer for the mod_proxy_lb case, while it wouldn't for s->server_id (IMHO).

Re: Which server id for mod_proxy_lb? (was: New ServerUID directive)

2018-02-07 Thread Jim Jagielski
At this point, I no longer have a horse in this race... From a philosophical point of view, adding 10kgs of fluff to fix 1kg of error seems over-engineering to me, but that is just me. +1 for whatever you think is best... and thx for your work on this.