Hello Willy, when the 'enable' command fails, it ignores ALL the servers in the list, e.g., see line 2 and line 4 of the logs below. The command is exactly the same, however it fails at the first attempt.
For testing purposes, I have now added a small sleep (40 ms) between the enable/disable command and the "check". It looks like things are working as expected now. Please note, however, that this is not due to the fact that I am using 2 separate sockets -- the spurious behavior occurs even if a single socket (open in interactive mode) is employed. Thanks, Michele On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi again, > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:42:24AM +0200, Michele Mazzucco wrote: >> Hi Willy, >> >> I apologize if I wasn't clear. The comment in my previous email means that >> the servers were enabled, as expected. >> In other words, disabling servers seems to work fine ALL the times, while >> enabling servers works from time to time only. >> >> In the scenario described by those logs (see my previous email), 2 servers >> are always enabled, while 3 are enabled/disabled at runtime. >> >> The following log >> >> 2012-03-15 08:14:18,112 Enabling reserves >> 2012-03-15 08:14:18,113 enable server www/i-95f89df1 ; enable server >> www/i-8bf89def ; enable server www/i-97f89df3 <--- line 2 >> 2012-03-15 08:14:18,113 Expected 5 active serves, have 2, calling >> change_state() again >> <--- line 3 >> 2012-03-15 08:14:18,113 enable server www/i-95f89df1 ; enable server >> www/i-8bf89def ; enable server www/i-97f89df3 <--- line 4 >> >> >> means that 3 servers were supposed to be enabled after line 2 (e.g., 5 >> servers in total), but were not (only the 2 'always on' servers are enabled). >> Hence, the command was issued again in line 4. This time the command >> succeeded. >> >> >> Here, instead: >> >> 2012-03-15 08:15:45,289 Enabling reserves >> 2012-03-15 08:15:45,290 enable server www/i-95f89df1 ; enable server >> www/i-8bf89def ; enable server www/i-97f89df3 <---- enabling works fine >> >> the command succeeded at the first attempt. >> >> >> I should mention that line 3 above uses a (different) socket which is open >> in interactive mode. There, the updated state is retrieved by means of 'show >> stat'. >> >> >> Does it make any sense now? > > Yes it's clearer that way. Still, if you have a means to report which servers > fail to be enabled, it would help. For instance we might discover it's always > the beginning of the list or the end of the list which is ignored. > > Regards, > Willy >
