On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:52:36PM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Le Mardi 2 Février 2010 23:39:22, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > at first I was hesitating because those DOWN/MAINT can become quite > > confusing, but after some thinking, the current situation is already > > confusing. > > > > So I think I'll merge this one but if someone comes up with a less > > confusing name than "DOWN/MAINT", I'll happily apply it. > > > > In my opinion the real state is MAINT, and we may complete it with > > some info indicating that it was propagated from another server. > > Maybe something such as "MAINT(via)" or "MAINT(auto)" or anything > > in that vein could be more explicit, I don't know. > > "MAINT(via)" looks fine. OK, I'll make the modification so if you want to > wait before meging, don't hesitate ;)
OK. > > Cyril, could you please add the new states to the doc ? > > Yes, I can add some details in the "disable server" section. Is it where you > want an update ? Sorry for not being clear, I was speaking about section 9.1, which is approximately the only place people find information about the stats format : 17. status: status (UP/DOWN/...) We should update that to reflect the new states. I don't think there are other places referencing server states, but I may be wrong, of course. Thanks, Willy
