Aleksandar, Shouldn’t your setup allow for one central syslog type container that collects all logs sent to it from the network? I think it beats solutions that will handle the write to file after HAProxy and it certainly respects the one process per container best practice.
Pedro. > On 18 Feb 2016, at 13:53, Aleksandar Lazic <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi. > > Am 18-02-2016 11:47, schrieb Conrad Hoffmann: >> Two more cents from my side: >> socklog [1] also works pretty well... >> [1] http://smarden.org/socklog/ >> Conrad >> On 02/18/2016 11:28 AM, Baptiste wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi Aleks, >>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:30:06PM +0100, Aleksandar Lazic wrote: >>>>> Hi. >>>>> how difficult is it to be able to add "log stdout;" to haproxy? > > [snipp] > >>>> It's been discussed a few times in the past. The response is "no". >>>> It's totally insane to emit logs to a blocking destination. Your >>>> whole haproxy process will run at the speed of the logs consumer >>>> and the log processing will incure its latency to the process. > > > [snipp] > >>> My 2 cents: Some tools may be used for this purpose: >>> Configure HAProxy to send logs to port 2000, then use: >>> - socat: >>> socat -u UDP-RECV:2000 - > > [snipp] > >>> - netcat: >>> netcat -l -k -u 2000 > > [snipp] > > Thanks for answers and suggestions. > > But this moves just the stdout handling to other tools and does not solve the > problem with blocking handling of std*, as far as I have understood right. > > It also 'violates' the best practice of docker. > > https://docs.docker.com/engine/userguide/eng-image/dockerfile_best-practices/#run-only-one-process-per-container > > Okay this could be solved with the linking as described in the link. > > For openshift I will try to use 2 container in 1 pod. > > If there any interests I can write here if this works ;-) > > BR Aleks >
