Cool, thanks Baptiste. Appreciate it. We will check the patch out. On Sep 18, 2015 2:21 PM, "Baptiste" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please find a patch in attachment which fix the issue so you can run > temporarly the latest code in production. > That said, I need to discuss with Willy to ensure this is the best way > to do it, since this patch changes the design we did. > Anyway, I've updated my server-state code to match the new behavior, > soe everyone should be satisfied. > > Baptiste > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Pradeep Jindal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It'd be interesting to know the complete semantics of the feature you are > > implementing. I know you understand that our use case is a valid one. > And we > > are open to explore alternative approaches to achieve the same. Till > then we > > will be running haproxy with the flag change reverted and wait for your > > response on this. > > > > On Sep 18, 2015 1:25 AM, "Baptiste" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Pavlos Parissis > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On 15/09/2015 08:45 πμ, Cyril Bonté wrote: > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Le 14/09/2015 14:23, Ayush Goyal a écrit : > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> We are testing haproxy-1.6dev4, we have added a server in backend as > >> >>> disabled, but we are not able > >> >>> to bring it up using socket command. > >> >>> > >> >>> Our backend conf looks like this: > >> >>> > >> >>> =====cut==== > >> >>> backend apiservers > >> >>> server api101 localhost:1234 maxconn 128 weight 1 > >> >>> check > >> >>> server api102 localhost:1235 disabled maxconn 128 weight 1 > >> >>> check > >> >>> server api103 localhost:1236 disabled maxconn 128 weight 1 > >> >>> check > >> >>> =====cut==== > >> >>> > >> >>> But, when I run the "enable apiservers/api103" command, it is still > in > >> >>> MAINT mode. Disabling and enabling of non "disabled" servers like > >> >>> api101 > >> >>> are happening properly. > >> >>> > >> >>> Enabling a config "disabled" server works correctly with haproxy1.5. > >> >>> Can > >> >>> you confirm whether its a bug in 1.6-dev4? > >> >> > >> >> This is due to the introduction of the SRV_ADMF_CMAINT flag, which is > >> >> set permanently. The "enable/disable" socket command will only modify > >> >> the SRV_ADMF_FMAINT and SRV_ADMF_FDRAIN flags. > >> >> > >> >> I add Baptiste to the thread. > >> >> > >> > > >> > That will break our setup as well, where an external tool uses the > >> > socket to disable a server in the running config and regenerate the > >> > configuration with the server disabled. > >> > > >> > I am also interested in knowing the motivation behind this change. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Pavlos > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This "feature" was an early patch for later coming feature to avoid > >> any impact of reloading HAProxy on servers state. > >> I'm currently finishing the dev before forwarding the patches to Willy > >> by tomorrow. > >> We needed to know the real reason why a server was in maintenance > >> state: was it because of configuration or through the socket, so at > >> next reload we could apply the right state based on old running state, > >> old config state and new config state. > >> > >> I'm going to check what we can do to fix your issue. > >> > >> Baptiste > >> > > >
