On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:21:28AM +0200, Hannes Eder wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:00:01 +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 05:03:12PM +0200, Hannes Eder wrote:
> > > Match the output of `ipvsadm -L -n` against a given ldirectord
> > > configuration file to produce a verbose status sub-command output, to
> > > see which virtual and which real servers are up or down, plus some
> > > additional information.
> > 
> > Hi Hannes,
> > 
> > sorry for taking an extra long time to notice this one.
> > The change seems reasonable to me, and I'm happy to commit it
> > (assuming that it still applies). But I am wondering if
> > it would be better to add this to ipvsadm. What do you think?
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> What this patch in essence does is comparing:
> 
>   - a ldirectord config file (how it should be), against
> 
>   - ipvsadm output (how it is).
> 
> Lots of the code needed for that is already in ldirectord (parsing
> config files and parsing ipvsadm's output).  Implementing this in
> ipvsadm would require ipvsadm to parse ldirectord config files.  I do
> not think this is such a good idea.  IMHO the best place for this is
> ldirectord.

Thanks, I think you are right there.

> > > The output mimics format of NetScaler "show" commands.
> 
> I changed my mind on that.  I think it is better to use the ldirectord
> terminology instead of the NetScaler terminology, this makes the it
> fit better.
> 
> I'll send a new patch.
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/

Reply via email to