Thanks for taking a look and explaining. Should I create a ticket on GitHub for 


> On 25. Jul 2019, at 10:44, William Lallemand <wlallem...@haproxy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23:24AM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>> Hi.
>> Am 25.07.2019 um 10:06 schrieb William Lallemand:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 08:07:45AM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>> You're making a good point. Use the file system was the simplest and
>>>> fastest way to go when we first designed this feature 4 or 5 years ago.
>>>> I do agree that now with master/worker and threaded model being pushed that
>>>> using the runtime-api may make sense and would be even more "cloud native".
>>>> Maybe @William would have an advice on this one.
>>>> Baptiste
>>> Hi,
>>> The simplest way to do that with the current architecture would be to do the
>>> same thing as the "seamless reload" feature (-x).
>>> The new process will need to connect to the old one, send the `show servers
>>> state` command, and then parse it using the server state file parser.
>>> However, what I don't like with this, is that we still need to configure a
>>> "stats socket" manually in the configuration, it is not doable yet using the
>>> internal socketpair of the master-worker model.
>> How about to catch the idea from Daniel to use a *internal* peers setup for 
>> such
>> states?
> I don't think it makes sense to use peers for that.
> The idea to do it with the stats socket is good, we only need to improve the
> master-worker so a worker could use the socketpair to connect to another
> worker. The only drawback is that it needs a configured stats socket in the
> current model, but we already have this limitation with the seamless reload.
> --
> William Lallemand

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Reply via email to