Re: [PATCH] MINOR: cfgparse: Allow disable of stats

Hi Robin, On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:49:21PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Add a 'stats disable' option that can be used to explicitly disable the > stats, without issuing the warning message as seen on TCP proxies. > > If any stats options are present in a default block, there is presently >

Re: HAProxy clustering

I didn't say that if one can hit it, they all can. However, if you want to use that logic, then I'd counter with.. if it's not currently the active instance, it doesn't matter if it can or not. Thus, why do the health check? The only time it'd matter if the inactive/standby sever can hit the

Re: HAProxy clustering

So because one loadbal can reach the service the others can? Log spam needs getting rid of anyway. Filter it out whether its the in service or one of the out of service loadbal. If you have a complex health check that creates load make it a little smarter and cache its result for a while On

Re: HAProxy clustering

backend health should be in on the sticktables that are shared between all instances, right? With that in mind, the inactive servers would know the backed states if a failover were to occur. no sense in having the log spam, network traffic, and load from healthchecks that aree essentially

Re: HAProxy clustering

Hello Marco, I would be very interest on how you build your harpy config, you must have per server settings and then a global config ? If time permit and if you can share some unusable config I would be very happy to look into this.. Thanks --- Guillaume Bourque, B.Sc., Architecte

Fw: Amazon Business - Guaranteed Results

Title: Hello Hello, If you ever thought of starting a business on Amazon, we can help you. We're based in San Diego and we've helped more than 100 sellers reach income of $30k to $80k Per Month within just few months. Even if you're completely new to online business, you can earn $10k Per

Re: HAProxy clustering

Hi! I use keepalived for IP management. I use Ansible on another host to deploy the configuration on the haproxy nodes. This setup gives me better control on the configuration: it is split in several files on the Ansible host, but assembled to a single config file on the nodes. This gives

Re: HAProxy clustering

I would be interested in seeing the ansible playbook, if it's sanitized? On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Michel blanc wrote: > Le 16/12/2016 à 16:08, Jeff Palmer a écrit : > >>> Hi >>> I would like to know what is the best way to have multiple instances of >>>

Re: HAProxy clustering

On 16-12-16 16:19:09, Michel blanc wrote: > Here I use pacemaker+corosync and 2 VIPs (+ round robin DNS) so all > haproxy instances are active. In case of failure, failed VIP is > "moved" to the remaining instance (which then holds the 2 VIPs). Doing this as well. Also, pacemaker/corosync enables

Re: HAProxy clustering

Le 16/12/2016 à 16:08, Jeff Palmer a écrit : >> Hi >> I would like to know what is the best way to have multiple instances of >> haproxy and have or share the same configuration file between these >> instances. > If you find a solution to the health checks from unused instances, let us >

Re: HAProxy clustering

If you find a solution to the health checks from unused instances, let us know! On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Stephan Müller wrote: > > > On 16.12.2016 14:58, shouldbeq931 wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 16 Dec 2016, at 13:22, Allan Moraes

Re: HAProxy clustering

On 16.12.2016 14:58, shouldbeq931 wrote: On 16 Dec 2016, at 13:22, Allan Moraes wrote: Hi I would like to know what is the best way to have multiple instances of haproxy and have or share the same configuration file between these instances. I use keepalived to

Re: HAProxy clustering

> On 16 Dec 2016, at 13:22, Allan Moraes wrote: > > Hi > I would like to know what is the best way to have multiple instances of > haproxy and have or share the same configuration file between these instances. I use keepalived to present clustered addresses, and

HAProxy clustering

Hi I would like to know what is the best way to have multiple instances of haproxy and have or share the same configuration file between these instances.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] haproxy-1.7.1

Cool, even TLS 1.3 0 RTT feature requires no changes? On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Lukas Tribus wrote: > Hi Igor, > > > Am 14.12.2016 um 20:47 schrieb Igor Pav: >> >> Hi Lukas, in fact, openssl already gets early TLS 1.3 adoption in dev, >> will release in 1.1.1, and BoringSSL