Bumping up this thread for comments or merging.
On 07/21/2017 04:49 PM, Andjelko Iharos wrote:
> On 07/03/2017 01:46 PM, Andjelko Iharos wrote:
>> On 07/02/2017 09:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>
This could either be
On 07/03/2017 01:46 PM, Andjelko Iharos wrote:
> On 07/02/2017 09:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>> This could either be introduced only in the current development version
>>> because of the compatibility breakage or a
On 07/02/2017 09:52 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> I had to deal with this issue recently as well but I'd rather like to
>> see a more explicit and well defined response in all cases rather than
>> the workaround
Hi Dennis,
On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 01:37:52AM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> I had to deal with this issue recently as well but I'd rather like to
> see a more explicit and well defined response in all cases rather than
> the workaround proposed above.
> Its not clear why a warning should
On 30.06.2017 13:43, Andjelko Iharos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to propose for discussion an improvement to the feedback
> delivered by HAProxy over the stats socket.
>
> Currently the feedback of stats socket commands is inconsistent and it
> can be difficult for external tools issuing
5 matches
Mail list logo