On 11/18/19 7:05 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:06:08PM +0100, Baptiste wrote:
When we first designed this feature, we did it with this in mind "if admins
can update a SRV record in a DNS server, they can adjust the weight

I understand the need, but the response is way too short. It's a global
question of precedence in HAProxy from my point of view.
I am scared that if we start to adjust things this way, we'll end up with
1000s of flags overlapping each others and adding complexity on top of

The real question is "what prevents an admin from updating a DNS record?"
Or why they don't failover to A/AAAA records only?
I must admit I understand a valid use case : have the DNS set up to advertise
the list of servers, and let the agent adjust the servers' health based on
their load, the fact that they're running backup or OS updates etc. Thus in
my opinion, the *use case* makes sense. What I'm unsure about is the proper
way to do it, because as you mention, it's more a matter of overall
consistency between all sources. We could very well instead have a per-backend
setting indicating what source to fetch the weight from (agent, dns, health,
other?), where to fetch the maxconn from etc. Some may even want to combine
these (average, multiply, ...). I'm fine if you prefer to postpone it. If in
the end we decide to merge it as-is we could also backport it, and if we
decide to address it differently, at least we won't have to maintain one
extra short-lived flag.


I'm open to ideas on implementation method, definitely not stuck on this method :)    To be honest I was trying to find some "good first issues" to tackle.

GitHub request here: https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/48

Thanks for taking the time to review and provide your input guys!


-- Daniel

Reply via email to