On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 07:14:30PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote: > Im not 100% sure but if i remember something i read correctly it was > like using a "stick on dst" stick-table. > > That way the sticktable will make sure all traffic go's to a single > server, and only when it fails another server will be put in the > sticktable that will only have 1 entry.
Yes. That sounds accurate. > > You might want to test what happens when haproxy configuration is > reloaded.. But if you configure 'peers' the new haproxy process > should still have the same 'active' backend.. > > p.s. That is if im not mixing stuff up... This blog has something very close to what I'd like to deploy: http://blog.exceliance.fr/2014/01/17/emulating-activepassing-application-clustering-with-haproxy/ The only difference is that I'd like to have more than just one backup. I'll try to find some time to experiment in the next few days. Thanks. Ryan > Ryan O'Hara schreef op 30-1-2014 17:42: > >I'd like to define a proxy (tcp mode) that has multiple backend > >servers yet only uses one at a time. In other words, traffic comes > >into the frontend and is redirected to one backend server. Should that > >server fail, another is chosen. > > > >I realize this might be an odd thing to do with haproxy, and if you're > >thinking that simple VIP failover (ie. keepalived) is better suited > >for this, you are correct. Long story. > > > >I've gotten fairly close to achieving this behavior by having all my > >backend servers declared 'backup' and not using 'allbackups'. The only > >caveat is that these "backup" servers have a preference based on the > >order they are defined. Say my severs are defined in the backend like > >this: > > > > server foo-01 ... backup > > server foo-02 ... backup > > server foo-03 ... backup > > > >If foo-01 is up, all traffic will go to it. When foo-0t is down, all > >traffic will go to foo-02. When foo-01 comes back online, traffic goes > >back to foo-01. Ideally the backend servers would change only when it > >failed. Beside, this solution is rather ugly. > > > >Is there a better way? > > > >Ryan > > > >
