On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 05:30:17PM +0200, Conrad Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi again,
> so I tried to get this to work, but didn't manage yet. I also don't quite
> understand how this is supposed to work. The first haproxy process is
> started _without_ the -x option, is that correct? Where does that instance
> ever create the socket for transfer to later instances?
> I have it working now insofar that on reload, subsequent instances are
> spawned with the -x option, but they'll just complain that they can't get
> anything from the unix socket (because, for all I can tell, it's not
> there?). I also can't see the relevant code path where this socket gets
> created, but I didn't have time to read all of it yet.
> Am I doing something wrong? Did anyone get this to work with the
> systemd-wrapper so far?

You're right, the first one runs without -x. The socket used is just any
stats socket.

> Also, but this might be a coincidence, my test setup takes a huge
> performance penalty just by applying your patches (without any reloading
> whatsoever). Did this happen to anybody else? I'll send some numbers and
> more details tomorrow.

Ah this is news to me, I did not expect a performances impact, can you share
your configuration file ?

Thanks !


Reply via email to