Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Apache upgrade.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: Apache upgrade.
on 2006-11-14 18:15 Frank Ellermann said the following:
[...]
> Trying more old drafts, not the wanted effect, but here:
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite
>
> document not found + additionally a 404 for the error document
Aha. Found this problem, fixed it. A script which gradually deletes
old files in the /html/ cache also deleted the 404 handler script on
www1 [[ouch]] (but not yet on www2 and www3).
> On www2: only a document not found, no additional missing err404.
> On www3: same as www2
>
> Now adding -01, same effect (now www1 doesn't claim that it has any
> additional issue with the err404 document). Adding -01.txt, still
> no success. Using www3 + id + explicit 01.txt: found. Switching
> from id to html: works.
Hmm. Weird. Could this be a problem with the client-side casheing
not taking the full host name into consideration??
> Okay, that's plausible, if I use an exact name with id (not html)
> on a specific server (especially www3), and then switch to ftml,
> it works.
>
> But that's probably no "apache upgrade" effect, we discussed a
> similar effect some months ago, then you did something, I forgot
> what, cleared the cache maybe, and it worked again everywhere.
Right. That was a cache issue, but I don't remember details.
> Wild guess: Your cache is too big for some odd race condition
> somewhere, and www1 and/or www2 are more fragile than www3 wrt
> this rare condition (?)
Could be. In this case the primary problem was the disappearance of
the 404 handler on www1, but I can't explain the problems with www2
and www3. I'll keep an eye out for this (and if you have further
ideas, I'd be glad to hear them).
Regards,
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.