Mailing List Archive: Apache: Dev

Re: mod_proxy_balancer

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

rpluem at apache

Sep 3, 2007, 11:59 AM

Post #1 of 22 (812 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer

On 09/02/2007 04:57 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I've read Ruediger's patch about preventing mod_proxy_balancer from
> overwriting the status of workers when creating a new child process
> (http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=374929&view=rev).
>
> I'm running the latest stable release of Apache (2.2.4) and I think
> the same bug is overwriting the lbfactor value to 1 (original
> configuration) when creating a new child process. Is it really a bug?
> How can I prevent that?

Can you please try if the attached patch against trunk fixes your issue
(also applies for 2.2.x with little fuzz)?
Can you please open a bug report in bugzilla for this? This eases tracking
for us. Thanks.

I CCed dev [at] httpd as this is the correct mailing list for
such issues (apart from bugzilla as mentioned above).

Regards

Rüdiger

Attachments:

worker_init_patch.diff (1.31 KB)

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 3, 2007, 6:39 PM

Post #2 of 22 (779 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Hi !

I found this bug already opened at Bugzilla:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39907

In response to Ruediger's new patch, the call
PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED(workers) is causing that error log:

[Mon Sep 03 18:32:34 2007] [notice] child pid 5225 exit signal
Segmentation fault (11)

Runtime "s" structure from worker not initialized?

Vinicius

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

rpluem at apache

Sep 4, 2007, 7:26 AM

Post #3 of 22 (777 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

On 09/03/2007 11:40 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> Ruedinger:
>
> In your patch, I think the call PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED(workers)
> before initialize the pointer *workers is causing that error log:
>
> [Mon Sep 03 18:32:34 2007] [notice] child pid 5225 exit signal
> Segmentation fault (11)

Sorry my fault. Can you please try the attached one please?

>
> But if I call the method: ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share(conf,
> workers, s); before, I always get worker initialized...

Which is why I called it before :-).

Regards

Rüdiger

Attachments:

worker_init_patch_2.diff (1.34 KB)

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 4, 2007, 10:22 AM

Post #4 of 22 (775 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

I don't know why, but each time a new child is created the variable
worker_is_initialized is 0.

Therefore, the problem of reseting to the original configuration is not solved.

I'm debugging more on this...

On 04/09/07, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/03/2007 11:40 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > Ruedinger:
> >
> > In your patch, I think the call PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED(workers)
> > before initialize the pointer *workers is causing that error log:
> >
> > [Mon Sep 03 18:32:34 2007] [notice] child pid 5225 exit signal
> > Segmentation fault (11)
>
> Sorry my fault. Can you please try the attached one please?
>
> >
> > But if I call the method: ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share(conf,
> > workers, s); before, I always get worker initialized...
>
> Which is why I called it before :-).
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 4, 2007, 12:58 PM

Post #5 of 22 (777 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Hi,

As I said before, your last patch didn't solve the bug because the
variable you created (worker_is_initialized) always gets zero value.

I've created the patches attached. The solution was to simply move the
code section that set lbfactor, lbstatus, and lbset to the original
configuration inside the function ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share()
in proxy_util.c.

It works using my httpd-trunk version. Could you guys confirm if it is correct?

Vinicius

On 04/09/07, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> I don't know why, but each time a new child is created the variable
> worker_is_initialized is 0.
>
> Therefore, the problem of reseting to the original configuration is not solved.
>
> I'm debugging more on this...
>
> On 04/09/07, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09/03/2007 11:40 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > > Ruedinger:
> > >
> > > In your patch, I think the call PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED(workers)
> > > before initialize the pointer *workers is causing that error log:
> > >
> > > [Mon Sep 03 18:32:34 2007] [notice] child pid 5225 exit signal
> > > Segmentation fault (11)
> >
> > Sorry my fault. Can you please try the attached one please?
> >
> > >
> > > But if I call the method: ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share(conf,
> > > workers, s); before, I always get worker initialized...
> >
> > Which is why I called it before :-).
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rüdiger
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

Attachments:

patch_init_balancer.diff (0.70 KB)

patch_proxy_initialize.diff (0.59 KB)

ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Sep 5, 2007, 3:29 AM

Post #6 of 22 (775 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: vpetrucci [at] gmail Im
> Auftrag von Vinicius Petrucci
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. September 2007 21:59
> An: Ruediger Pluem
> Cc: dev [at] httpd
> Betreff: Re: mod_proxy_balancer
>
>
> Hi,
>
> As I said before, your last patch didn't solve the bug because the
> variable you created (worker_is_initialized) always gets zero value.
>
> I've created the patches attached. The solution was to simply move the
> code section that set lbfactor, lbstatus, and lbset to the original
> configuration inside the function ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share()
> in proxy_util.c.

This is really, really strange because basicly the conditions in your patch
and my patch are the same (The test done at the beginning of
ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share is basicly the same as mine).
So I currently cannot tell why your patch works and mine does not. This
needs further testing.

>
> It works using my httpd-trunk version. Could you guys confirm
> if it is correct?

The downside of your patch is that ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share
is also called from other places outside mod_proxy_balancer and
it is part of the public proxy API which might make it impossible
to backport your patch to the stable branch as your patch changes
the behaviour of the function.

Regards

Rüdiger

>
> Vinicius
>
> On 04/09/07, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> > I don't know why, but each time a new child is created the variable
> > worker_is_initialized is 0.
> >
> > Therefore, the problem of reseting to the original
> configuration is not solved.
> >
> > I'm debugging more on this...
> >
> > On 04/09/07, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/03/2007 11:40 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > > > Ruedinger:
> > > >
> > > > In your patch, I think the call
> PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED(workers)
> > > > before initialize the pointer *workers is causing that
> error log:
> > > >
> > > > [Mon Sep 03 18:32:34 2007] [notice] child pid 5225 exit signal
> > > > Segmentation fault (11)
> > >
> > > Sorry my fault. Can you please try the attached one please?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But if I call the method: ap_proxy_initialize_worker_share(conf,
> > > > workers, s); before, I always get worker initialized...
> > >
> > > Which is why I called it before :-).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Rüdiger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
> >
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
>

jim at jaguNET

Sep 5, 2007, 5:02 AM

Post #7 of 22 (772 views)
Permalink

Re: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Hmmm... maybe:

worker_is_initialized = (workers->s && PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
(workers));

instead of

worker_is_initialized = workers->s ?
PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
(workers) : 0;

??

ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Sep 5, 2007, 6:04 AM

Post #8 of 22 (773 views)
Permalink

AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 14:03
> An: dev [at] httpd
> Betreff: Re: mod_proxy_balancer
>
>
> Hmmm... maybe:
>
> worker_is_initialized = (workers->s &&
> PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
> (workers));
>
> instead of
>
> worker_is_initialized = workers->s ?
> PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
> (workers) : 0;
>

Ok. But doesn't this deliver the same results (at least from the logical
point of view)?
It may be that if worker_is_initialized results in something != 0 that
this value is different between both, but this should not matter.
So it boils down to a matter of style (BTW: I am happy to adjust it
to the first version).

Regards

Rüdiger

jim at jaguNET

Sep 5, 2007, 6:12 AM

Post #9 of 22 (774 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:

>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 14:03
>> An: dev [at] httpd
>> Betreff: Re: mod_proxy_balancer
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... maybe:
>>
>> worker_is_initialized = (workers->s &&
>> PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
>> (workers));
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> worker_is_initialized = workers->s ?
>> PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
>> (workers) : 0;
>>
>
> Ok. But doesn't this deliver the same results (at least from the
> logical
> point of view)?
> It may be that if worker_is_initialized results in something != 0 that
> this value is different between both, but this should not matter.
> So it boils down to a matter of style (BTW: I am happy to adjust it
> to the first version).
>

Like you said, logically it doesn't make sense that the
2 patches work different (yours doesn't and Vinicius'
does)... So I was thinking a different logic test for
Vinicius to try, to see if its something local on
his end...

ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Sep 5, 2007, 6:17 AM

Post #10 of 22 (773 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 15:13
> An: dev [at] httpd
> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
>

>
> Like you said, logically it doesn't make sense that the
> 2 patches work different (yours doesn't and Vinicius'
> does)... So I was thinking a different logic test for
> Vinicius to try, to see if its something local on
> his end...

Ahh Ok. Now I get it. Thanks.

Regards

Rüdiger

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 5, 2007, 8:06 AM

Post #11 of 22 (779 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Well... I will give another try... Indeed, modifying proxy_utils.c
might not be a nice solution...

On 05/09/07, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <ruediger.pluem [at] vodafone> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Jim Jagielski
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 15:13
> > An: dev [at] httpd
> > Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
> >
>
> >
> > Like you said, logically it doesn't make sense that the
> > 2 patches work different (yours doesn't and Vinicius'
> > does)... So I was thinking a different logic test for
> > Vinicius to try, to see if its something local on
> > his end...
>
> Ahh Ok. Now I get it. Thanks.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 5, 2007, 9:09 AM

Post #12 of 22 (781 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Well, debugging a little bit more... I realize that the condition
(worker is already initialized?) in proxy_util.c(1672) is always
bypassed, which is the same condition used by the Rüdiger's patch.

But, in proxy_util.c(1706) the same condition is rechecked (the
comment says "Possible if proxy is using scoreboard to hold shared
stats").

Attached is the patch applied and the error_log with debug information.

Vinicius

On 05/09/07, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> Well... I will give another try... Indeed, modifying proxy_utils.c
> might not be a nice solution...
>
> On 05/09/07, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <ruediger.pluem [at] vodafone> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Jim Jagielski
> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 15:13
> > > An: dev [at] httpd
> > > Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Like you said, logically it doesn't make sense that the
> > > 2 patches work different (yours doesn't and Vinicius'
> > > does)... So I was thinking a different logic test for
> > > Vinicius to try, to see if its something local on
> > > his end...
> >
> > Ahh Ok. Now I get it. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rüdiger
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

Attachments:

balancer_patch.diff (1.94 KB)

error_log (44.9 KB)

ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Sep 10, 2007, 6:18 AM

Post #13 of 22 (760 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: vpetrucci [at] gmail
> Auftrag von Vinicius Petrucci
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 18:09
> An: dev [at] httpd
> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
>
>
> Well, debugging a little bit more... I realize that the condition
> (worker is already initialized?) in proxy_util.c(1672) is always
> bypassed, which is the same condition used by the Rüdiger's patch.
>
> But, in proxy_util.c(1706) the same condition is rechecked (the
> comment says "Possible if proxy is using scoreboard to hold shared
> stats").

This is the reason why my patch does not work. Attached two proposed solutions:

worker_init_patch_plus_r572937.diff: A simple and nice solution, but IMHO it is not
backportable as it changes the API.
worker_init_patch_plus_r572937_back.diff: A more complex and nasty solution that IMHO is
backportable.

Both patches require r572937 to be applied first.

Can you please give both patches a try?

Other comments welcome as well.

Regards

Rüdiger

>
> Attached is the patch applied and the error_log with debug
> information.
>
> Vinicius
>
> On 05/09/07, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> > Well... I will give another try... Indeed, modifying proxy_utils.c
> > might not be a nice solution...
> >
> > On 05/09/07, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
> <ruediger.pluem [at] vodafone> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: Jim Jagielski
> > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 15:13
> > > > An: dev [at] httpd
> > > > Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Like you said, logically it doesn't make sense that the
> > > > 2 patches work different (yours doesn't and Vinicius'
> > > > does)... So I was thinking a different logic test for
> > > > Vinicius to try, to see if its something local on
> > > > his end...
> > >
> > > Ahh Ok. Now I get it. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Rüdiger
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
> >
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
>

Attachments:

worker_init_patch_plus_r572937.diff (4.44 KB)

worker_init_patch_plus_r572937_back.diff (1.95 KB)

jim at jaguNET

Sep 10, 2007, 7:05 AM

Post #14 of 22 (759 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

On Sep 10, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:

>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: vpetrucci [at] gmail
>> Auftrag von Vinicius Petrucci
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 18:09
>> An: dev [at] httpd
>> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
>>
>>
>> Well, debugging a little bit more... I realize that the condition
>> (worker is already initialized?) in proxy_util.c(1672) is always
>> bypassed, which is the same condition used by the Rüdiger's patch.
>>
>> But, in proxy_util.c(1706) the same condition is rechecked (the
>> comment says "Possible if proxy is using scoreboard to hold shared
>> stats").
>
> This is the reason why my patch does not work. Attached two
> proposed solutions:
>
> worker_init_patch_plus_r572937.diff: A simple and nice solution,
> but IMHO it is not
> backportable as it changes the API.
> worker_init_patch_plus_r572937_back.diff: A more complex and nasty
> solution that IMHO is
> backportable.
>
> Both patches require r572937 to be applied first.
>
> Can you please give both patches a try?
>
> Other comments welcome as well.
>

Regarding the 2nd one... the:

+ else {
+ worker_is_initialized = 0;
+ }

seems redundant... But other than that nit, looks good!

ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Sep 10, 2007, 7:42 AM

Post #15 of 22 (756 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2007 16:06
> An: dev [at] httpd
> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
>

>
> Regarding the 2nd one... the:
>
> + else {
> + worker_is_initialized = 0;
> + }
>
> seems redundant... But other than that nit, looks good!

Point taken. Thanks for catching it.
My approach would be to commit the 2nd patch first, get it backported
and improve things on trunk with the first patch afterwards.
Another approach would be to commit the first patch to trunk and propose
the second for backport. I am not sure about the best approach here.

Regards

Rüdiger

jim at jaguNET

Sep 10, 2007, 7:57 AM

Post #16 of 22 (757 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:

>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2007 16:06
>> An: dev [at] httpd
>> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
>>
>
>>
>> Regarding the 2nd one... the:
>>
>> + else {
>> + worker_is_initialized = 0;
>> + }
>>
>> seems redundant... But other than that nit, looks good!
>
> Point taken. Thanks for catching it.
> My approach would be to commit the 2nd patch first, get it backported
> and improve things on trunk with the first patch afterwards.
> Another approach would be to commit the first patch to trunk and
> propose
> the second for backport. I am not sure about the best approach here.
>

The 1st sounds better to me... And it's not *that* ugly :) :)

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 10, 2007, 9:16 AM

Post #17 of 22 (754 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

I've tried the 1st patch (which is simpler and nicer) in httpd-trunk
and now It seems to work... :)

On 10/09/2007, Jim Jagielski <jim [at] jagunet> wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Jim Jagielski
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2007 16:06
> >> An: dev [at] httpd
> >> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Regarding the 2nd one... the:
> >>
> >> + else {
> >> + worker_is_initialized = 0;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> seems redundant... But other than that nit, looks good!
> >
> > Point taken. Thanks for catching it.
> > My approach would be to commit the 2nd patch first, get it backported
> > and improve things on trunk with the first patch afterwards.
> > Another approach would be to commit the first patch to trunk and
> > propose
> > the second for backport. I am not sure about the best approach here.
> >
>
> The 1st sounds better to me... And it's not *that* ugly :) :)
>
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

rpluem at apache

Sep 10, 2007, 12:32 PM

Post #18 of 22 (758 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

On 09/10/2007 06:16 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> I've tried the 1st patch (which is simpler and nicer) in httpd-trunk
> and now It seems to work... :)

Thanks for testing, but can you please also test the 2nd patch?
Only the 2nd patch is backportable and I would like to see this fixed in 2.2.x too.

Regards

Rüdiger

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 10, 2007, 6:06 PM

Post #19 of 22 (753 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Hi Rüdiger,

I've tested the 2nd. It works fine. :)

best,
Vinicius

On 10/09/2007, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/10/2007 06:16 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > I've tried the 1st patch (which is simpler and nicer) in httpd-trunk
> > and now It seems to work... :)
>
> Thanks for testing, but can you please also test the 2nd patch?
> Only the 2nd patch is backportable and I would like to see this fixed in 2.2.x too.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 10, 2007, 6:11 PM

Post #20 of 22 (749 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

What do I have to do to work in 2.2.6? Too much changes in r572937?

On 10/09/2007, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> Hi Rüdiger,
>
> I've tested the 2nd. It works fine. :)
>
> best,
> Vinicius
>
> On 10/09/2007, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09/10/2007 06:16 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > > I've tried the 1st patch (which is simpler and nicer) in httpd-trunk
> > > and now It seems to work... :)
> >
> > Thanks for testing, but can you please also test the 2nd patch?
> > Only the 2nd patch is backportable and I would like to see this fixed in 2.2.x too.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rüdiger
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Sep 10, 2007, 11:27 PM

Post #21 of 22 (747 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Thanks for testing. The attached patch cleanly applies to 2.2.x and also
contains a backport of r527937.

Regards

Rüdiger

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: vpetrucci [at] gmail
> Auftrag von Vinicius Petrucci
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. September 2007 03:11
> An: dev [at] httpd
> Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
>
>
> What do I have to do to work in 2.2.6? Too much changes in r572937?
>
> On 10/09/2007, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> > Hi Rüdiger,
> >
> > I've tested the 2nd. It works fine. :)
> >
> > best,
> > Vinicius
> >
> > On 10/09/2007, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 09/10/2007 06:16 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > > > I've tried the 1st patch (which is simpler and nicer)
> in httpd-trunk
> > > > and now It seems to work... :)
> > >
> > > Thanks for testing, but can you please also test the 2nd patch?
> > > Only the 2nd patch is backportable and I would like to
> see this fixed in 2.2.x too.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Rüdiger
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
> >
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
>

Attachments:

worker_init_patch_plus_r572937_2.2.x.diff (3.10 KB)

vpetrucci at ic

Sep 11, 2007, 6:57 AM

Post #22 of 22 (751 views)
Permalink

Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer [In reply to]

Tested in 2.2.6 ...

Thanks Rüdiger ! :)

On 11/09/2007, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group <ruediger.pluem [at] vodafone> wrote:
> Thanks for testing. The attached patch cleanly applies to 2.2.x and also
> contains a backport of r527937.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: vpetrucci [at] gmail
> > Auftrag von Vinicius Petrucci
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. September 2007 03:11
> > An: dev [at] httpd
> > Betreff: Re: AW: mod_proxy_balancer
> >
> >
> > What do I have to do to work in 2.2.6? Too much changes in r572937?
> >
> > On 10/09/2007, Vinicius Petrucci <vpetrucci [at] ic> wrote:
> > > Hi Rüdiger,
> > >
> > > I've tested the 2nd. It works fine. :)
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Vinicius
> > >
> > > On 10/09/2007, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem [at] apache> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 09/10/2007 06:16 PM, Vinicius Petrucci wrote:
> > > > > I've tried the 1st patch (which is simpler and nicer)
> > in httpd-trunk
> > > > > and now It seems to work... :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for testing, but can you please also test the 2nd patch?
> > > > Only the 2nd patch is backportable and I would like to
> > see this fixed in 2.2.x too.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Rüdiger
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> > > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
> > home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci
> >
>
>

--
Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
home page: http://www.ic.uff.br/~vpetrucci

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads