Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ProxyReverseConnectPolicy for failover (feature suggestion) #260

Open
demonlair opened this issue Jan 19, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

ProxyReverseConnectPolicy for failover (feature suggestion) #260

demonlair opened this issue Jan 19, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@demonlair
Copy link

Use case: mod_proxy as reverse proxy in front of a pair of backend servers, for upload only (no downloads) of moderately large files where there are two backend servers for resilience, not performance.

It is desired to be able to resume interrupted uploads if the whole FTP session is interrupted, so reconnecting needs to use the same backend server if it is available, but still fail over to a different server if needed.

For this use case, a 'sequential' connect policy that always starts at the beginning of the list and tries each server in turn would be useful, as it would mean that under normal conditions the first server is always used and therefore interrupted STORE operations can be resumed, but if that goes offline, it will use the second. (This trivially applies to more than two servers, of course).

Using PerHost policy does not work for this case - it selects the same backend each time for a given client host, but does not fail over to using another backend if the selected one is down.

@Castaglia
Copy link
Owner

Indeed, I've been pondering how to implement such a feature in mod_proxy for a while; see, for example, Issue #186

@demonlair
Copy link
Author

Yes, I read #186 looking for any related open issues and that sounds like a useful future thing too. I am hoping that a simple sequential policy without the extra complexity of state tracking etc. would be easier to add than the full state tracking.

When I get a bit more time I plan to look at the relevant pieces of the code, if a patch that added a sequential mode might be acceptable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants