Re: Apache 2.4 create a huge amount of shared memory segments (Apache Users)

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.dev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Sylvain,

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Sylvain Goulmy <sygoulmy@xxxxxxxxx> 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-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx