Am 28.10.2019 um 17:44 schrieb Jarno Huuskonen:
On Mon, Oct 28, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
Am 27.10.2019 um 20:16 schrieb David Birdsong:
I'm just curious: what replaces monitor-uri? I'm putting up a new proxy
tier at my new company and can steer to use the more up-to-date method,
but combing the docs and nothing jumps out at me.
I'm guessing something in either http-re{quest,response}, but I don't
see anything that synthesizes responses in there.
I would think about to use errorfile for this.
https://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/2.1/configuration.html#4-errorfile
Could this work?
```
global
...
default
...
frontend
...
use_backend b_health if { path_beg /health }
...
backend b_health
errorfile 200 /etc/haproxy/errorfiles/200health.http
...
```
Or maybe something like:
http-request deny deny_status 500 if { path_beg /health } { nbsrv(yourbackend)
lt 1 }
http-request deny deny_status 200 if { path_beg /health }
Looks good but 'deny' and '200' feels wrong.
Maybe we should have a 'http-request monitor ...' which replaces the monitor*
stuff?
-Jarno
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 8:14 AM Willy Tarreau <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
a few months ago while working on cleaning up and stabilizing the
connection layers, I figured that we still have ugly hacks bypassing
the whole stack around the "mode health", "monitor-net" and "monitor-uri"
directives, that were all used to respond to health checks from an
external LB. Since SSL was introduced, these started not to make much
sense anymore, with raw data being sent directly to the socket and
bypassing the SSL stack, and now with muxes it's even worse.
Given their obvious obsolescence I don't expect anyone to be using these
anymore and to have switched to other mechanisms like HTTP redirects,
errorfiles or Lua instead which are all way more versatile and
configurable.
Thus I was thinking about marking them deprecated for 2.1 and then
removing them from 2.3. Or even better, removing them from 2.1, but
since we have not sent a prior deprecation warning, it would really
require confirmation that really nobody is using them at all anymore
(which I think is likely the case starting with 1.5).
Any opinion on this ?
Thanks,
Willy
