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 ! Olivier
