On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:06 AM William Dauchy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:14 AM Jerome Magnin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Apologies for forgetting about adding this in my commit message. Out of > > curiosity which use case is currently covered for you ? I did most of my > > testing on the number of FD and wasn't able to confirm that only startup > > is broken, and reload behaves as expected. Either way I first get > > alerted, then warned, and I have a new haproxy process with not so > > strict limits. > > you are right, there is definitely something weird here. It seems like > none of the mentioned scenarios works without your patch, so I wonder > how I managed to screw up the situation like this. Because I'm pretty > sure it worked at some point, at least I hope ;-) > I wondered whether this is not related to > http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=commit;h=e039f26ba463023282356096ec1cc0d110613e5c > where I moved code; but a quick revert seems to show it does not > change anything. I hope there is a good explanation outside of "I > badly tested things"! I definitely remember testing it in a production > scenario, odd!
I spend some time on it, trying to find a good explanation but it seems like I truly screw up. I probably overlooked the master worker test. So at the end forget my comment on the commit message, it seems like it never worked in master worker mode. Sorry for that! -- William
