its the -gt make it just gt.
this is what i ended up going with:
frontend priority_rails_farm xx.xx.xx.xxx:80
mode http
option forwardfor
acl priority_full dst_conn gt 4
use_backend rails_farm if priority_full
default_backend priority_rails_farm
the backend priority_rails_farm has 4 servers with maxconn 1 in it.
-Karl
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Michael Fortson <[email protected]>wrote:
> When trying this, I get:
> [ALERT] 056/063556 (24031) : parsing [/etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg:290] :
> error detected while parsing ACL 'nearly_full'.
> [ALERT] 056/063556 (24031) : Error reading configuration file :
> /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg
>
> (haproxy version 1.3.15.7)
>
> source:
> acl nearly_full connslots(fast_mongrels) lt 10
> use_backend everything if nearly_full
>
> also tried:
> acl nearly_full connslots(fast_mongrels) -lt 10
> use_backend everything if nearly_full
>
>
> hrm...
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:03:22AM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote:
> >> That's really cool. I've been doing it with weighting, but this is much
> >> nicer.
> >
> > it was proposed and developped by someone on the list (I don't remember
> > whom right now) for exactly this purpose.
> >
> >> Am I right in assuming that in this example, when nearly_full is
> triggered,
> >> it will switch entirely to that?
> >
> > yes, back1 will get traffic only when it's not considered full, and
> > back2 will get the excess traffic.
> >
> >> how does the balance between the two
> >> backends happen in this instance?
> >
> > There's no balance. The second backend only receives overloads. See
> > that as a cheap vs expensive pool of servers (or local vs remote).
> >
> >> Should you just repeat the definition of
> >> the first backend within the second to go "wide" with the server spread?
> >
> > Yes, this seems appropriate depending on your workload. Maybe you'll
> > remove "maxqueue" from the second though.
> >
> > Hoping this helps,
> > Willy
> >
> >
>
