Re: handling round robin errors
| From: | Silasi Stefan | Date: | Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:39:02 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: handling round robin errors | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.mirrors |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-mirrors+get-39881@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello,
I have one comment if I may.
When switching from Apache to nginx, the server_alias setting is lost.
Maybe the script should be "improved" to check if the mirror is answering
to "XX.php.net" and "XX[0-9].php.net" and not to care which one is first. I
don't know if there's a good reason behind the forcing of the ro.php.net vs
ro1.php.net.
Thank you,
Stefan.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> After thinking about what would be the best way to handle the round-robin
> mirror-test, I think that it should be handles as a normal mirror error,
> which after a couple of retries disables the mirror itself.
> Currently only 3 mirrors doesn't have round robin enabled (cn1, hu2 both
> disabled for other reasons and www.php.net, which also intentionally left
> out from the round robin), so we can say that everybody who complies to the
> mirroring rules also complies for this requirement.
> If a new mirror fails on this, they should fix it before we enable them,
> and if an existing mirror fails this test (which means that they have
> changed something in their configuration, and there could be other possible
> problems) it is ok that we temporary disable the mirror, and we can help
> the hoster fix the issue, or worst case we can simply disable the round
> robin flag for that particular mirror and the test should pass again.
> This change would make this test to fall in line with every other mirror
> testsand would also eliminate/greatly reduce the current false positives.
> If you think that for some reason it would be a bad idea to merge this with
> the other mirror-test errors, then please tell me why, and if we drop this
> idea I will add a new field to the mirrors table where I can store the
> retry counts for reducing the false positives for the current approach.
>
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>