Re: [PATCH] Implement persistent id for proxies and servers

From: Krzysztof Oledzki <>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:19:20 +0100 (CET)

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:22:41AM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>> From be4c911d87a6ac800a1fb33828fa87b5fc2806a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Krzysztof Piotr Oledzki <>
>> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:19:10 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] [MINOR] Implement persistent id for proxies and servers
>> This patch adds a possibility to set a persistent id for a proxy/server.
>> Now, even if some proxies/servers are inserted/deleted/moved, iids and
>> sids can be still used reliable.
> I like the idea a lot. I have merged your patch (with a few minor typos
> such as BACKED->BACKEND, or CVS->CSV).

Right, sorry. :(

> Right now, I'm a bit worried about the requirement to assign ids > 1000
> and the fact that we don't check for conflicts (I know people with almost
> 500 instances).

Hm. I assumed that 1000 should be fine as no one is supposed to have so many proxies. Obviously I was mistaken. We can bump this number (10K?) or write a documentation warning that with *really* big installations custom IDs should start with 10K. Of course checking for conflicts is still necessary, however it is better if they do not occur. ;)

> But we'll be able to improve this later. I have already identified that
> proxies should be dual-linked. It will then be easier to move instances
> in the list, then automatically assign numbers to the unnumberred ones.

Currently IDs are assigned to all instances and then overrried by a peristant ID. I did it intentionally not to mix up IDs of other instances if some get a persistent one.

Best regards,

                                 Krzysztof Olędzki Received on 2008/02/29 12:19

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/02/29 12:30 CET