OK, that did not seem to work, so I think the correct interpretation of that "addr" option must be as an override for what address/port to perform the health-check *against* instead of from (which makes more sense in context of it being a server option).
i was hoping for an option like "health-check-source" or similar, if that makes sense; I also tried removing the "source" directive and binding the frontend to the VIP explicitly, hoping that would cause the proxied requests to originate from the bound IP, but that didn't seem to do it either. While the standby was then able to see the backends as "up", the proxied requests to the backends came from the local IP instead of the VIP. Regards, Nathan W On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Nathan Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Baptiste/Jarno, > > Thanks so much for responding. > > "addr" does indeed look like a promising option (though a strangely > lacking explanation in the docs, which explains what it makes possible > while leaving the reader to deduce what it actually does), thanks for > pointing that out. > > Here's our config: https://gist.github.com/nathwill/d30f2e9cc0c97bc5fc6f > (believe it or not this is the trimmed down version from what we used to > have :), but backends, how they propagate in this microservice-oriented > world of ours... ). > > As for addresses, the VIP is 10.240.36.13, and the active/standby local > addresses are .11 and .12. > > fthe problem is basically that the way it's currently configured, when the > .11 is active and has the .13 address, health-checks from haproxy on the > .12 host also originate from the .13 address (guessing due to the "source" > line), and so never return and are (rightfully) marked by haproxy as L4CON > network timeouts. > > i'm going to try the "addr" config and report back; fingers crossed! > > cheers, > > Nathan W > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:21 AM Baptiste <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Nathan Williams <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I'm hoping I can get some advice on how we can improve our failover >> setup. >> > >> > At present, we have an active-standby setup. Failover works really >> well, but >> > on the standby, none of the backend servers are marked as "up" since >> haproxy >> > is bound to the VIP that is currently on the active member (managed with >> > keepalived). as a result, there's an initial period of a second or two >> after >> > the failover triggers and the standby claims the VIP where the backend >> > servers have not yet passed a health-check on the new active member. >> > >> > It seems like the easiest way to sort it out would be if the >> health-checks >> > weren't also bound to the VIP so that the standby could complete them >> > successfully. i do still want the proxied requests bound to the VIP >> though, >> > forthe benefit of our backends' real-ip configuration. >> > >> > is that doable? if not, is there some way to have the standby "follow" >> the >> > active-member's view on the backends, or another way i haven't seen yet? >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Nathan W >> >> Hi Nathan, >> >> Maybe you could share your configuration. >> Please also let us know the real and virtual IPs configured on your >> master and slave HAProxy servers. >> >> Baptiste >> >
