Re: Problem with external healthchecks and haproxy-ss-20140720

[Cc Malcolm Turnbull] On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:29:36AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi Cyril! On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:30:52PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote: Hi all, Le 07/08/2014 01:16, Cyril Bonté a écrit : Hi Bjoern, Le 06/08/2014 22:16, bjun...@gmail.com a écrit : (...)

Re: Problem with external healthchecks and haproxy-ss-20140720

I agree as well.. :-). Our original specification was to match the way that ldirectord does its external health checks (so that the customer scripts are compatible). We could just change ldirectord to be compatible with the new style as it sounds more extensible (leaving it backwards compatible

Re: Problem with external healthchecks and haproxy-ss-20140720

Hi, Le 15/08/2014 10:12, Malcolm Turnbull a écrit : I agree as well.. :-). Our original specification was to match the way that ldirectord does its external health checks (so that the customer scripts are compatible). We could just change ldirectord to be compatible with the new style as it

Re: Problem with external healthchecks and haproxy-ss-20140720

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:12:56AM +0100, Malcolm Turnbull wrote: I agree as well.. :-). Our original specification was to match the way that ldirectord does its external health checks (so that the customer scripts are compatible). We could just change ldirectord to be compatible with the

RE: [PATCH] Add a configurable support of standardized DH parameters = 1024 bits, disabled by default

Hi Remi! Well, I really hope you're right. This patch looks in the cipher's description instead of its name. Sorry about the mess. in src/ssl_sock.c:1582:11:    ciphers = ctx-cipher_list; can we use the API instead of accessing cipher_list directly? With [1] perhaps? Background: I'm