@henningw: the weight being expressed in percentage, you can't ensure proper accuracy for less than 100 calls, maybe in some particular cases, but not for most of the possible variants. Think about a simple to exemplify case of 100 destinations each with weight 1, if you have 2 calls, then two destinations get 50% of the traffic and the rest 0%. So try to fix that, I would love to see a solution.

@devopsec: I haven't checked the code, but I guess it is more like getting to a round robin with some destinations being many times in the group, like for example when there are two addresses, first with weight 75 and second with weight 25: first is added 3 times then the second (... and repeat). Is it randomised within these 4? Or just going to next one for each new call? If my guess is confirmed, then it is a new algorithm, the previous behaviour is lost, it is no longer a randomised distribution across 100 calls, but an ordered distribution (or randomised in group lower than 100).

@devopsec: looking at the updated commit, some fields of pointers are used before checking that the pointer is NULL: declaration of arrays using a field of a structure pointer -- we tried to avoid variable sized arrays in the past for compatibility with old compilers/C standards, I am not really against them, iirc they are allowed by C99, they have to bee relocated after the null check The old code does pkg_malloc/free() for ds_dests_flags for that reason.

—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.