Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

March 01, 2016 09:24AM
Hello,

On 3/1/16 8:34 AM, Andrew Hutchings wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 01/03/16 13:10, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 2/28/16 11:22 PM, Валентин Бартенев wrote:
>>> On Sunday 28 February 2016 08:52:12 meteor8488 wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I just upgrade Nginx from 1.8 o 1.9 on my FreeBSD box.
>>> [..]
>>>> Did I miss anything in the configuration? or for a busy server, it's
>>>> better
>>>> to use accept_mutex instead of reuseport?
>>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> In FreeBSD the SO_REUSEPORT option has completely different behavior
>>> and shouldn't be enabled in nginx.
>>>
>>
>> Should the configruation option then be disabled or silently ignored in
>> FreeBSD at this time?
>
> It would be difficult to selectively ignore operating systems based on
> how this function is supported. Especially if that support changes over
> time.

I don't claim to know how "difficult" that would be, but with all the
extremely talented coders in the Nginx group, I would think that
"difficult" would not be a barrier to "doing it right". If OS support
changes, nginx can change. Something tells me that with a FreeBSD Core
Team member on the Nginx payroll, if this OS feature changes, it'll
filter through to the people who write the code.

If I choose to try "use kqueue" on a system that does not support that
event method, I am hoping nginx would either tell me by refusing to
start, or ignore my stupidity. Similarly, if I attempt to enable
"reuseport" on Solaris or Windows which (I guess) do not support
SO_REUSEPORT, nginx will inform me. I know this happens on FreeBSD with,
for instance, aio. If aio is not built in to the kernel (it is not by
default), or specifically loaded, nginx gives an error and won't start.
In the case of SO_REUSEPORT, the OS call has virtually the opposite of
the desired effect.

If a directive has the potential for significantly bad consequences, it
should be spat out during config testing with at least a warning.

>
> I believe that DragonFly BSD for example supported the method most BSDs
> use originally.
>
> In the FreeBSD pattern it is designed to bleed off connections to one
> service as another comes up. Such as a binary upgrade. The last socket
> listener always gets new connections. This is almost the exact opposite
> of what Linux does with the option (DragonFly is somewhere in the
> middle). I'm personally not a BSD expert so can't say which other BSD
> operating systems use the same method as FreeBSD and even which ones do
> not even have a SO_REUSEPORT option.
>
> Documentation is probably the best option for now and we have tried to
> make it clear which operating systems do support this feature.


I'm not trying to make an excuse for not reading the documentation,
which is clear and is exactly why I have not tested this feature on
FreeBSD. Rather, I'm suggesting a more rigorous approach to config parsing.


--
Jim Ohlstein


"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
difference." - Mark Twain

_______________________________________________
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Subject Author Posted

enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

meteor8488 February 28, 2016 08:52AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Валентин Бартенев February 28, 2016 11:24PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Jim Ohlstein March 01, 2016 08:12AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Andrew Hutchings March 01, 2016 08:36AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Jim Ohlstein March 01, 2016 09:24AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Konovalov March 01, 2016 09:36AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Jim Ohlstein March 01, 2016 12:20PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Konovalov March 01, 2016 12:28PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Jim Ohlstein March 01, 2016 12:52PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Konovalov March 01, 2016 12:56PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Andrew Hutchings March 01, 2016 09:44AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Dounin February 29, 2016 09:08AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

drhowarddrfine March 01, 2016 07:46AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Konovalov March 01, 2016 07:54AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

drhowarddrfine March 01, 2016 08:08AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Konovalov March 01, 2016 08:14AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

drhowarddrfine March 01, 2016 08:32AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Valentin V. Bartenev March 01, 2016 08:36AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

meteor8488 March 01, 2016 07:13PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Andrew Hutchings March 02, 2016 03:40AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

meteor8488 January 27, 2017 11:02PM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

Maxim Konovalov January 28, 2017 05:32AM

Re: enable reuseport then only one worker is working?

meteor8488 February 02, 2017 07:41PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 84
Record Number of Users: 6 on February 13, 2018
Record Number of Guests: 421 on December 02, 2018
Powered by nginx      Powered by FreeBSD      PHP Powered      Powered by MariaDB      ipv6 ready