On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:37 PM Daniel Corbett <dcorb...@haproxy.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> 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
> >> accordingly".
> >>
> >> 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
> >> complexity.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Willy
>
>
> 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!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Daniel
>
>
>
I replied back on the github issue to re-start conversation on the topic.
Based on the answer, I'll give you my go or not :) If the go happens after
the release, we can still backport this quick change if this is really
useful to people.

Baptiste

Reply via email to