Hi Willy, Those changes has been done into config generate script, is it working good now.
Thanks for suggestions and haproxy version 1.4.10 is really working great, still working on the benchmarking stuff. -Ravi On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > Ravi, > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 05:55:59PM +0530, Ravi Bhure wrote: > > I mean to, we are using 1.3.x since long time, and all these things > > (haproxy config files) generated through script that we have built, and > its > > very nicely handled through-out the new config generate as we require. > > Since, no matter for changes those you suggested, but again there is few > > errors remains ... . > > Those warnings are precisely here to tell you that your config will not > work as you think it should. In the past, such configs were common and > caused some bug reports here on the list. Each time we can find an > obviously non-working config that haproxy can detect by itself, we add > such a warning. You can safely ignore them if you want, but I'd really > suggest that you fix your config at one point because it is misleading. > > Having a "forwardfor" in a TCP section will do nothing. While most users > will not have a trouble with that, some less experimented will believe > it works and will waste their time debugging the config. Think about the > people who'll handle the setup for you when you're on holidays. > > If you're using a script to generate the confs, then it's as simple as > not adding "stats" or any HTTP-specific option when generating a TCP > section. > > Regards, > Willy > > -- Thanks & Regards, Ravi Bhure http://www.indianGNU.org Register Linux user # 463269
