You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com> on 2013/11/08 11:17:49 UTC
mod_proxy: maximum hostname length for workers
I'm looking at an issue with this log message
AH00526: Syntax error on line 6 of myconfig.conf: BalancerMember worker
hostname (aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dd-eee-ffffffffff.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com)
too long
with the root cause being (modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h)
#define PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE 64
and I'm wondering why this is. I did not see any comments on why there is
this limit, so I assume it's for performance reasons.
Also, I'm wondering what the implications (if any) of altering this limit
are.
Re: persisting the slotmem (Was: Re: mod_proxy: maximum hostname length for workers)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Now in trunk and proposed for 2.4...
On Nov 9, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> On 11/8/2013 12:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> This has me thinking... we should likely do something to
>> better error-check the store/restore aspects of slotmem.
>> Even some sort of quick checksum would be better than
>> what we have now. :/
>>
>> Gotta mull this over a bit more.
>
> +1 to that. I couldn't imagine someone (or thing) would go muck with
> that file... but stranger things have happened on MY file systems :-)
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
Re: persisting the slotmem (Was: Re: mod_proxy: maximum hostname
length for workers)
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 11/8/2013 12:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This has me thinking... we should likely do something to
> better error-check the store/restore aspects of slotmem.
> Even some sort of quick checksum would be better than
> what we have now. :/
>
> Gotta mull this over a bit more.
+1 to that. I couldn't imagine someone (or thing) would go muck with
that file... but stranger things have happened on MY file systems :-)
--
Daniel Ruggeri
persisting the slotmem (Was: Re: mod_proxy: maximum hostname length for workers)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
This has me thinking... we should likely do something to
better error-check the store/restore aspects of slotmem.
Even some sort of quick checksum would be better than
what we have now. :/
Gotta mull this over a bit more.
On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Mostly due to the "persist" feature... Right now it just does
> a memcpy (basically). If people don't use it then it's not
> an issue.
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
>>> that constitutes an API change for proxy...
>>
>> API change, why is that ? At least the shm size stuff doesn't look like having a lot of implications other then memory consumption - to make sure of this assumption is why I asked in the first place. I can well imagine setting those defaults at build time, possibly with a directive for performance fine tuning at post-build time.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, it's basically for performance and storage reasons (since those
>> strings are stored in shm)... Nowadays I don't think shm is such an
>> expensive commodity, though I can imagine some setups where the
>> default sizes allowed by the kernel could be kinda small.
>>
>> I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
>> that constitutes an API change for proxy...
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking at an issue with this log message
>>>
>>> AH00526: Syntax error on line 6 of myconfig.conf: BalancerMember worker hostname (aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dd-eee-ffffffffff.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com) too long
>>>
>>> with the root cause being (modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h)
>>>
>>> #define PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE 64
>>>
>>> and I'm wondering why this is. I did not see any comments on why there is this limit, so I assume it's for performance reasons.
>>>
>>> Also, I'm wondering what the implications (if any) of altering this limit are.
>>
>>
>
Re: mod_proxy: maximum hostname length for workers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Mostly due to the "persist" feature... Right now it just does
a memcpy (basically). If people don't use it then it's not
an issue.
On Nov 8, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
> > that constitutes an API change for proxy...
>
> API change, why is that ? At least the shm size stuff doesn't look like having a lot of implications other then memory consumption - to make sure of this assumption is why I asked in the first place. I can well imagine setting those defaults at build time, possibly with a directive for performance fine tuning at post-build time.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Yeah, it's basically for performance and storage reasons (since those
> strings are stored in shm)... Nowadays I don't think shm is such an
> expensive commodity, though I can imagine some setups where the
> default sizes allowed by the kernel could be kinda small.
>
> I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
> that constitutes an API change for proxy...
>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking at an issue with this log message
> >
> > AH00526: Syntax error on line 6 of myconfig.conf: BalancerMember worker hostname (aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dd-eee-ffffffffff.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com) too long
> >
> > with the root cause being (modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h)
> >
> > #define PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE 64
> >
> > and I'm wondering why this is. I did not see any comments on why there is this limit, so I assume it's for performance reasons.
> >
> > Also, I'm wondering what the implications (if any) of altering this limit are.
>
>
Re: mod_proxy: maximum hostname length for workers
Posted by Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com>.
> I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
> that constitutes an API change for proxy...
API change, why is that ? At least the shm size stuff doesn't look like
having a lot of implications other then memory consumption - to make sure
of this assumption is why I asked in the first place. I can well imagine
setting those defaults at build time, possibly with a directive for
performance fine tuning at post-build time.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Yeah, it's basically for performance and storage reasons (since those
> strings are stored in shm)... Nowadays I don't think shm is such an
> expensive commodity, though I can imagine some setups where the
> default sizes allowed by the kernel could be kinda small.
>
> I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
> that constitutes an API change for proxy...
>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking at an issue with this log message
> >
> > AH00526: Syntax error on line 6 of myconfig.conf: BalancerMember
> worker hostname (
> aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dd-eee-ffffffffff.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com) too long
> >
> > with the root cause being (modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h)
> >
> > #define PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE 64
> >
> > and I'm wondering why this is. I did not see any comments on why there
> is this limit, so I assume it's for performance reasons.
> >
> > Also, I'm wondering what the implications (if any) of altering this
> limit are.
>
>
Re: mod_proxy: maximum hostname length for workers
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yeah, it's basically for performance and storage reasons (since those
strings are stored in shm)... Nowadays I don't think shm is such an
expensive commodity, though I can imagine some setups where the
default sizes allowed by the kernel could be kinda small.
I'd be +1 in adjusting all of those fields bigger, but I'm guessing
that constitutes an API change for proxy...
On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Thomas Eckert <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at an issue with this log message
>
> AH00526: Syntax error on line 6 of myconfig.conf: BalancerMember worker hostname (aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dd-eee-ffffffffff.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com) too long
>
> with the root cause being (modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h)
>
> #define PROXY_WORKER_MAX_HOSTNAME_SIZE 64
>
> and I'm wondering why this is. I did not see any comments on why there is this limit, so I assume it's for performance reasons.
>
> Also, I'm wondering what the implications (if any) of altering this limit are.