Yann, I did some additionnal tests with the BalancerInherit directive. If I add the directive "BalancerInherit Off" in the main section I still have the issue (shm saturation) if the number of virtual hosts/balancers is too important. With a single virtual host then I can access correctly to the application whereas I shouldn't be able to ... In other words, the directive seems to have no effect. Anyway if it worked correctly i couldn't have accessed to my application anymore, so i guess it doesn't deserve to spend more time on this question.
I also did some test with the balancer definition inside the virtual host : I confirm that this configuration is ok. Unfortunately for me, this choice introduces significant change on my apache 2.2 configuration and adds a lot of complexity in my migration process. I also lose some functionnality like an global overview of my balancer states via a single URL. So before considering this option, as far as you know, do you think there is definitely no other options available. Regards. Sylvain On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Sylvain, > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Sylvain Goulmy <sygou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > My configuration is currently defining 338 virtual hosts and 169 proxy > > balancers. > > > > The balancers are defined in the main section. Each virtual host refers > only > > one balancer. > > > > Here what i notice : > > - Apache creates one shm for each balancer > > - Each virtual hosts creates one shm for each balancer even if it doesn't > > refer it... > > in 2.4, each vhost's balancer needs it own SHM plus as much SHMs as > the balancer's members (the dynamic balancer-manager manages per > vhost). > By declaring all the balancers in the main config (and using > "BalancerInherit on" to make them *all* available in *all* the > vhosts), you multiply that number by the number of balancers and the > number of of vhosts... > > > > > Am i missing a directive that could avoid that behaviour or do i have to > > redesign my all configuration by moving each balancer definition at the > > virtual host level ? > > You can't set "BalancerInherit off" since the "main" balancers won't > be usable in the vhosts anymore. > Since moreover "each virtual host refers only one balancer" in your > configuration, you'd better declare each balancer in the corresponding > vhost, and see that no more shared-memory than needed will be created > (depending on the number of balancer members used by each vhost). > > Regards, > Yann. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org > >
