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

Do not forward the 'tried=' CGI within the proxy interface. #285

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 11, 2015

Conversation

bbockelm
Copy link
Contributor

This may cause the proxy to respond with 'file not found', causing
upstream redirectors to believe the file is not present behind
the proxy at all - even if it's just 'not found' because the only
source was excluded.

This may cause the proxy to respond with 'file not found', causing
upstream redirectors to believe the file is not present behind
the proxy at all - even if it's just 'not found' because the only
source was excluded.
abh3 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2015
Do not forward the 'tried=' CGI within the proxy interface.
@abh3 abh3 merged commit 1ca224f into xrootd:master Sep 11, 2015
@abh3
Copy link
Member

abh3 commented Sep 11, 2015

Thanks Brian.

@bbockelm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually - be ready to revert this one. After I sent the PR, Andrea reported it didn't seem to work (I assume he'll be able to provide us more information on Monday).

@alja
Copy link
Contributor

alja commented Sep 14, 2015

@bbockelm
I'm concerned this will effect hadoop healing proxy. In this case we must used 'tried=' because we don't want that file is served from the cluster where files were corrupt.

@bbockelm
Copy link
Contributor Author

For what it's worth, '?tried=' can (and often is) ignored. You can't depend on it functioning.

That said, I'm not sure this fixed things for Andrea anyway.

@alja
Copy link
Contributor

alja commented Oct 7, 2015

I hope '?tried=' will be reliable when servers will be updated to new version.

Anyway, healing proxy server need to pass the tried argument. Maybe there is some other way to fix the issue reported in the first comment.

@abh3
Brian and I both agree to revert this PR.

@abh3
Copy link
Member

abh3 commented Oct 7, 2015 via email

@bbockelm
Copy link
Contributor Author

bbockelm commented Oct 8, 2015

I think we should definitely revert it - solving this via DPM patch appears to cover the root of the issue.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants