On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 04:58:16PM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > > > On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 04:18:58PM +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > >>> I think you wanted to put HCHK_STATUS_L57OK here, not OKD since we're > >>> in the 2xx/3xx state and not 404 disable. Or maybe I misunderstood the > >>> OKD status ? > >> > >> OKD means we have Layer5-7 data avalible, like for example http code. > >> Several times I found that some of my servers were misconfigured and were > >> returning a 3xx code redirecting to a page-not-found webpage instead of > >> doing a proper healt-check, so I think it is good to know what was the > >> response, even if it was OK (2xx/3xx). > > > > Ah OK that makes sense now. It's a good idea to note that data is > > available, for later when we want to capture it whole. Indeed, I'd > > like to reuse the same capture principle as is used in proxies for > > errors. It does not take *that* much space and is so much useful > > already that we ought to implement it soon there too ! > > OK, I found where your confusion comes from - the diff was incomplete, > there was no include/types/checks.h file that explains how > HCHK_STATUS_L57OK differs from HCHK_STATUS_L57OKD and also makes it > possible to compile the code. :( > > Dmitry, could you please use this patch instead? ;) >
Okay, thank you.
