[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > there is something that bothers me in the patch Bernd sent, that is > the local_worker property of workers, I think the concept of local > worker is linked with that of load balancing worker, and not to that > of worker. Nothing forbids to have an ajp13 worker in several load > balancing workers, if the local worker property is linked to the ajp13 > worker, the worker will be considered local for every load balancing > worker it appears in which is something I think should be avoided. > > Mathias. >
Sorry, but I asked for, how to handle this flag yesterday and I got no response. Costin said, that he'll wait for my patch, and I don't want to let him wait for days. If we add a list to the lb_worker, how should this be handled? Lets say it is called 'local_workers'. Should the local workers be in the list of balanced workers too? If yes, I think this makes the config look a little bit unclean. If not, we have to change the validate function more than I want to, because it depends on having balanced workers. And with a second list it is possible to have only local workers. By the way, with the same motivation we should ask about the lb_value. It is not possible to have one worker with different values in different lb_workers. But it may be that one worker is the most powerful in one group (lb_worker) and less powerful in another. Ok normaly the lb_values should be choosen in order to the power of all workers and not because of one group. :) I build the patch for the described simple situation. When I understand jk2 right, this would be the right choice for a more complex environment. Which way should be implemented? We should find one position and implement it then. May be I was a little bit to fast this time :). Bernd -- Dipl.-Inform. Bernd Koecke UNIX-Entwicklung Schlund+Partner AG Fon: +49-721-91374-0 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
