Thank you for your feeback, i guess i have to review the whole configuration design in the migration process and move balancer definitions in vhost section.
Regards. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > If migrating to 2.4, I would suggest using the method Yann describes > and have each balancer defined in its own vhost section. This is > because it is most likely that inheriting balancers will be > deprecated/removed in later versions of httpd, simply because > (1) it doesn't make sense and (2) causes the kinds of issues > you see. > > I would recommend using mod_macro to help out with your migration; > you could create a macro Vhost definition... > > > On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Sylvain Goulmy <sygou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org > >
