On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:28:22PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:17:24PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Olivier,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:35:35PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The attached patch attempts to map SRV record weight to haproxy weight
> > > correctly,
> > > SRV weight goes from 0 to 65536 while haproxy uses 0 to 256, so we have to
> > > divide it by 256, and a SRV weight of 0 doesn't mean the server shouldn't
> > > be
> > > used, so we use a minimum weight of 1.
> >
> > From what I'm seeing in the code, it's 0..65535 for the SRV record. And
> > that allows us to simplify it and use the full range of the weight like
> > this :
> >
> > hap_weight = srv_weight / 256 + 1;
> >
> > => 0..255 return 1
> > 1..511 return 2
> > ...
> > 65280..65535 return 256
> >
> > What do you think ?
> >
> > Willy
> >
>
> Sure, sounds good, for some reason I thought the max was 255, but it's
> actually 256, one day I'll learn how to read C.
I can only recommend you this one, which I hope will also help me write
less bugs in haproxy once I finish it :
http://www.c-for-dummies.com/
Willy
