Hi Willy, On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:29:12PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Sorry for the long delay and thanks for waiting. I've just reviewed your > two patch series (16 total). They're pretty good in my opinion.
likewise, sorry for the delay. > I'm seeing a few points we'll probably have to adjust : > - normally, health checks reserve file descriptors (one per checked server), > here we'll have to count up to two fds when the two checks are enabled. > I don't remember where this is done, maybe in haproxy.c. Sure, I will look into that and update my patches accordingly. > - I think that we'll soon have to support an agent-addr parameter, which > means that ->addr will have to move from check_common to struct check. Sure, I will move that. I will probably also implement agent-addr as a way to test it. > The reason for the last point is that I'm pretty sure that a number of uses > of the agent will involve checking a component to get reliability information > about the server itself. It might simply be because the server runs on > multiple addresses, or in transparent mode. But it might also be because > a monitoring station is checked to retrieve the server status. > > Also what I like with your approach with the "struct check" is that it > could make it easier to combine tests later. Many people ask how it is > possible to check two ports at a time and AND them. Till now it was not > possible but now it starts to be possible. Thanks. I think there are a few assumptions lingering in my implementation, but it should not be difficult to weed them out and use the code in a more generic manner. > We already have a massive number of patches pending for dev18, so I think > I'll issue dev18 now then open post-dev18 with your patches. Thanks. Should I re-post my series or make the changes you suggest above as incremental patches on top of my existing patches?
