On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 06:14:41AM +0000, Yuval Abadi via nginx wrote: Hi there,
I don't speak for the project, but my guess is: > If the configuration has 2 servers sharing the same name and the same port > I got this warning: > "nginx: [warn] conflicting server name "http://www.mut.com/"; on 0.0.0.0:80, > ignored" > > Why not block this mistake? If you have 20 server{}s, and 2 share the name and port, should the entire system fail to start (or reload config)? It seems friendlier to me to use the config as-provided, and alert on things that are not used as the administrator apparently expected. Some configuration issues are considered more important than some others. This particular one is currently not considered "fatal". > I assume the second server ignored, but why let it possible? nginx does not control what the administrator types. > If the servers do not have name > I got this warning: > nginx: [warn] conflicting server name "" on 0.0.0.0:9002, ignored > nginx: [warn] conflicting server name "" on 0.0.0.0:80, ignored Yes; it's the same message, showing the listen ip:port and server_name values that are unexpected. > both warning: > first no way for NGINX gives good warning, both server looks the same. I agree that it would be even friendlier if the error message indicated the filename and line number that the unexpected configuration came from; I suspect that a patch to change that would be thoughtfully considered. Maybe someone will be interested in providing that patch, now that the issue has been mentioned. (Maybe the only reason the log omits the filename is that no-one thought to add it here, where it is added in other places. Or maybe it is harder than that to implement.) > if user did such mistake, better to block. I disagree. It appears that the current code disagrees too; maybe that will change in the future. > Why not enforce using at list one server have "listen default_server port"? I think that is enforced already -- if you have more than one "default_server", you get an "emerg" failure. If you have none explicitly, then the implicit config applies -- and I would rather not lose the implicit config. > Why not enforce server names , and not let more than one server with same > name? I think that is what it is doing already; it considers it a "warning" rather than an "emergency" configuration issue. > Is NGINX set the bit default_server ,on the first "ngx_http_conf_addr_t", > of the first server, that read from conf file? (if no default_server was > defined)? > I'm not quite sure what you are asking: if it is about the code, it is not hidden and is quite readable; if it is about which server is default_server if none is explicit, then the documentation also describes that -- the "implicit" default_server for a specific ip:port is the first server{} that was read with that (possibly implicit) "listen" config. Cheers, f -- Francis Daly fran...@daoine.org _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org https://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
