Please find a patch in attachment which fix the issue so you can run
temporarly the latest code in production.
That said, I need to discuss with Willy to ensure this is the best way
to do it, since this patch changes the design we did.
Anyway, I've updated my server-state code to match the new
Cool, thanks Baptiste. Appreciate it. We will check the patch out.
On Sep 18, 2015 2:21 PM, "Baptiste" wrote:
> Please find a patch in attachment which fix the issue so you can run
> temporarly the latest code in production.
> That said, I need to discuss with Willy to ensure
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:51:13AM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
> Please find a patch in attachment which fix the issue so you can run
> temporarly the latest code in production.
> That said, I need to discuss with Willy to ensure this is the best way
> to do it, since this patch changes the design we
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
> I'm using it carefully. I set up a matrix of all combination from old
> config, state at run time in old process and state in new config and
> came to the conclusion that:
> - in case of a configuration change, we apply the setting from
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:51:13AM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
>> Please find a patch in attachment which fix the issue so you can run
>> temporarly the latest code in production.
>> That said, I need to discuss with Willy to ensure
On 15/09/2015 08:45 πμ, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Le 14/09/2015 14:23, Ayush Goyal a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are testing haproxy-1.6dev4, we have added a server in backend as
>> disabled, but we are not able
>> to bring it up using socket command.
>>
>> Our backend conf looks like this:
>>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Pavlos Parissis
wrote:
> On 15/09/2015 08:45 πμ, Cyril Bonté wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Le 14/09/2015 14:23, Ayush Goyal a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We are testing haproxy-1.6dev4, we have added a server in backend as
>>> disabled, but we are
On 17/09/2015 09:53 μμ, Baptiste wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Pavlos Parissis
> wrote:
>> On 15/09/2015 08:45 πμ, Cyril Bonté wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 14/09/2015 14:23, Ayush Goyal a écrit :
Hi,
We are testing haproxy-1.6dev4, we have
It'd be interesting to know the complete semantics of the feature you are
implementing. I know you understand that our use case is a valid one. And
we are open to explore alternative approaches to achieve the same. Till
then we will be running haproxy with the flag change reverted and wait for
Hi,
Le 14/09/2015 14:23, Ayush Goyal a écrit :
Hi,
We are testing haproxy-1.6dev4, we have added a server in backend as
disabled, but we are not able
to bring it up using socket command.
Our backend conf looks like this:
=cut
backend apiservers
server api101 localhost:1234
Hi,
Could you please tell us about the motivation behind introducing
SRV_ADMF_CMAINT flag? We were planning to avoid haproxy reloads by adding
"dummy" servers in the configuration in "disabled" mode and then "set
server addr" and "enable" socket commands to enable them on-demand. And
that, we now
Hi,
We are testing haproxy-1.6dev4, we have added a server in backend as
disabled, but we are not able
to bring it up using socket command.
Our backend conf looks like this:
=cut
backend apiservers
server api101 localhost:1234 maxconn 128 weight 1 check
server
12 matches
Mail list logo