Mailing List Archive

[mod_backhand-users] 1.1.0 Compatibility?
Is 1.1.0 compatable with 1.0.9? i.e. Can 1.1.0 apaches communicate
and proxy safely with 1.0.9 ones?

-Blake


Forwarded message:
> From backhand-users-admin@lists.backhand.org Wed Sep 06 03:39:39 2000
> Delivered-To: blakem-backhand@blakem.com
> Message-ID: <39B5BDF2.240ADF8E@cnds.jhu.edu>
> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:45:54 -0400
> From: "Theo E. Schlossnagle" <theos@cnds.jhu.edu>
> Organization: Center for Networking and Distributed Systems
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: backhand-users@lists.backhand.org,
> backhand-devel@lists.backhand.org
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Subject: [mod_backhand-users] mod_backhand 1.1.0 released.
> Sender: backhand-users-admin@lists.backhand.org
> Errors-To: backhand-users-admin@lists.backhand.org
> X-BeenThere: backhand-users@lists.backhand.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta2
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Id: mod_backhand -- users list <backhand-users.lists.backhand.org>
>
> Hello all,
>
> mod_backhand 1.1.0 has just been released. This fixes a major bug as well as
> a few quirks. If you found that mod_backhand just plain wouldn't work before,
> this release is likely to have fixed the problem. Here is the excerpt from
> the ChangeLog:
>
> September 4th, 2000 (09.04.2000) -- mod_backhand -- 1.1.0
> =================================================
> * Fixed uninitialized variable bug in back_util.c. The effects were that
> trash values could be found in the server port of the advertised
> service. This caused different mod_backhand instances to fail when
> proxying. I could not reproduce this on my Linux machine. Many
> thanks to Sean Chittenden for the time on his BSD boxes to debug the
> problem.
> * Fixed logic error when calculating byLoad with a bias. It did not
> calculate biases as the FAQ implied. Thanks to Blake Millis.
> * Changed the byAge candidacy function to never eliminate oneself. Under
> high loads, the daemon process was often scheduled so infrequently
> that the local server expired, rendering BackhandSelfRedirect On
> ineffective.
> * Changed two accidental snprintf's to ap_snprintf's for portability.
>
>
> The unresolved TODO list is as follows:
>
> o Implement load-weighted randomized request allocation.
> o Make the proxying code more aggressive (with non-blocking I/O).
> o Fix construction of headers in backhand_redirection to avoid possible
> buffer overflow.
> o Caching engine.
> o Change all constants to #define's.
> o Fix code so that is will compile using Sun's ProC compiler.
>
> Many other features are currently being worked on, but did not make it into
> this release. Most of my recent time has been spent working on the course
> notes and presentation for the ApacheCon 2000 Europe. If you can make it to
> London in October to participate in a great conference, we would love to see
> you there. (www.apachecon.com)
>
> --
> Theo Schlossnagle
> 1024D/A8EBCF8F/13BD 8C08 6BE2 629A 527E 2DC2 72C2 AD05 A8EB CF8F
> 2047R/33131B65/71 F7 95 64 49 76 5D BA 3D 90 B9 9F BE 27 24 E7
>
> _______________________________________________
> backhand-users mailing list
> backhand-users@lists.backhand.org
> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users
>
[mod_backhand-users] 1.1.0 Compatibility? [ In reply to ]
Yes, but note that because the byLoad [bias] function has been changed to work
like the FAQ says, you will need to change that line in the conf file or
screwy decisions will be made.

They use an identical statistics structure, so they should be no inter daemon
communication problems between these two versions.

"Blake D. Mills IV" wrote:
> Is 1.1.0 compatable with 1.0.9? i.e. Can 1.1.0 apaches communicate
> and proxy safely with 1.0.9 ones?

--
Theo Schlossnagle
1024D/A8EBCF8F/13BD 8C08 6BE2 629A 527E 2DC2 72C2 AD05 A8EB CF8F
2047R/33131B65/71 F7 95 64 49 76 5D BA 3D 90 B9 9F BE 27 24 E7