Re: haproxy architecture

2019-05-20 Thread Alex Evonosky
Jeff > > > On 20/05/2019 17:48, Alex Evonosky wrote: > > example: > > pod1: > > primary: 1.1.1.2 > secondary: 1.1.1.3 > virtual: 1.1.1.1 > > > pod2: > > primary: 1.1.1.5 > secondary: 1.1.1.6 > virtual: 1.1.1.4 > > > The mechanism to utiliz

Re: haproxy architecture

2019-05-20 Thread Alex Evonosky
rry if my questions are overly basic. I'm just trying to get a grip on > what this means and how to do it. > > Jeff > > > On 20/05/2019 17:12, Alex Evonosky wrote: > > Jeff- > > ViP - Virtual IP. this is a shared IP between nodes. One node is primary > and the othe

Re: haproxy architecture

2019-05-20 Thread Alex Evonosky
hich used to > have DNS resolutions from one name to multiple IP's, now resolve to a > single IP. > > Jeff Abrahamson > http://p27.eu/jeff/ > http://transport-nantes.com/ > > > On 20/05/2019 15:04, Alex Evonosky wrote: > > You could make it a bit more agile

Re: haproxy architecture

2019-05-20 Thread Alex Evonosky
You could make it a bit more agile and scale it: you can run them in "pods", such as two haproxy instances running keepalived between them and use the ViP IP as the DNS record, so if an HAproxy instance was to die, the alternate HAproxy instance can take over. Set more pods up and use DNS round

Re: What to look out for when going from 1.6 to 1.8?

2018-07-16 Thread Alex Evonosky
Tim- I can speak from a production point of view that we had HAproxy on the 1.6 branch inside docker containers for mesos load balancing with pretty much the same requirements as you spoke of. After compiling Haproxy to the 1.8x branch the same config worked without issues. -Alex On Mon, Jul

Re: [ANNOUNCE] haproxy-1.8.0

2017-11-27 Thread Alex Evonosky
Congratulations! On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Arnall wrote: > Le 26/11/2017 à 19:57, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> After one year of intense development and almost one month of debugging, >> polishing, and cross-review work trying to prevent our respective