Re: Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Willy Tarreau]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:53:44AM -0600, Ryan O'Hara wrote:
> > Spec file can run configuration check(-f  -c) after installation
> > and print a warning if configuration is in valid.
> 
> I'm well aware, but I'm the package maintainer so I don't have all the
> config files to test. :) Thanks!

And a few configs making use of unescaped quotes may behave slightly
differently or even fail to parse if quotes are unbalanced. A great care
was taken to ensure that such use cases are extremely unlikely, but this
also means not impossible :-)

Willy

Re: Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Baptiste]

By the way, there are no 'appsession' any more :)

Baptiste

Re: Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Ryan O'Hara]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 03:11:12PM +0100, Baptiste wrote:
> By the way, there are no 'appsession' any more :)

Thanks, Baptiste!

Ryan

Re: Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Ryan O'Hara]

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:16:14AM +0100, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/01/2016 08:49 πμ, Baptiste wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ryan O'Hara  wrote:
> >>
> >> Are there any known incompatibilities between a config file for
> >> haproxy version 1.5 and 1.6? Specifically, is there anything that is
> >> valid in 1.5 that is no longer valid in 1.6? I'm asking because I am
> >> considering a rebase of haproxy 1.6 in Fedora/RHEL but need to avoid
> >> such issues. If I recall, I rebased from 1.4 to 1.5 in Fedora many
> >> months back and a user ran into a problem in this regard. Any
> >> information is greatly appreciated!
> >>
> >> Ryan
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Hi Ryan,
> > 
> > My answer won't be exhaustive, sorry about that. Hopefully, other
> > people may help.
> > 
> > I think the configuration parser is less permissive. IE, 2 frontends
> > or 2 backends can't have the same name.
> > The configuration where the listening IP:port address is set on the
> > 'frontend' line is not allowed anymore.
> > 
> > More ALERT may also be triggered when the configuration parser doesn't
> > understand a keyword while those keywords used to be silently ignored.
> > (check alertif_too_many_args_idx() ).
> > 
> > So by definition, many configuration may be broken.
> > 
> 
> It depends on the configuration. I have migrated 1.5 installations to
> 1.6 with zero configuration problems, but my configurations were quite
> simple.
> 
> People with complex configuration or configuration which was created on
> 1.4 and silently copied to 1.5 may see issues on 1.6.

This is precisely why I am asking on the upstream mailing list. If
there are known incompatibilities, this is the place to ask! :)

> Spec file can run configuration check(-f  -c) after installation
> and print a warning if configuration is in valid.

I'm well aware, but I'm the package maintainer so I don't have all the
config files to test. :) Thanks!

Ryan

Re: Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Pavlos Parissis]

On 06/01/2016 08:49 πμ, Baptiste wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ryan O'Hara  wrote:
>>
>> Are there any known incompatibilities between a config file for
>> haproxy version 1.5 and 1.6? Specifically, is there anything that is
>> valid in 1.5 that is no longer valid in 1.6? I'm asking because I am
>> considering a rebase of haproxy 1.6 in Fedora/RHEL but need to avoid
>> such issues. If I recall, I rebased from 1.4 to 1.5 in Fedora many
>> months back and a user ran into a problem in this regard. Any
>> information is greatly appreciated!
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
> 
> Hi Ryan,
> 
> My answer won't be exhaustive, sorry about that. Hopefully, other
> people may help.
> 
> I think the configuration parser is less permissive. IE, 2 frontends
> or 2 backends can't have the same name.
> The configuration where the listening IP:port address is set on the
> 'frontend' line is not allowed anymore.
> 
> More ALERT may also be triggered when the configuration parser doesn't
> understand a keyword while those keywords used to be silently ignored.
> (check alertif_too_many_args_idx() ).
> 
> So by definition, many configuration may be broken.
> 

It depends on the configuration. I have migrated 1.5 installations to
1.6 with zero configuration problems, but my configurations were quite
simple.

People with complex configuration or configuration which was created on
1.4 and silently copied to 1.5 may see issues on 1.6.

Spec file can run configuration check(-f  -c) after installation
and print a warning if configuration is in valid.

Cheers,
Pavlos



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Ryan O'Hara]

Are there any known incompatibilities between a config file for
haproxy version 1.5 and 1.6? Specifically, is there anything that is
valid in 1.5 that is no longer valid in 1.6? I'm asking because I am
considering a rebase of haproxy 1.6 in Fedora/RHEL but need to avoid
such issues. If I recall, I rebased from 1.4 to 1.5 in Fedora many
months back and a user ran into a problem in this regard. Any
information is greatly appreciated!

Ryan

Re: Config file compatibility between 1.5 and 1.6

[Baptiste]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Ryan O'Hara  wrote:
>
> Are there any known incompatibilities between a config file for
> haproxy version 1.5 and 1.6? Specifically, is there anything that is
> valid in 1.5 that is no longer valid in 1.6? I'm asking because I am
> considering a rebase of haproxy 1.6 in Fedora/RHEL but need to avoid
> such issues. If I recall, I rebased from 1.4 to 1.5 in Fedora many
> months back and a user ran into a problem in this regard. Any
> information is greatly appreciated!
>
> Ryan
>
>

Hi Ryan,

My answer won't be exhaustive, sorry about that. Hopefully, other
people may help.

I think the configuration parser is less permissive. IE, 2 frontends
or 2 backends can't have the same name.
The configuration where the listening IP:port address is set on the
'frontend' line is not allowed anymore.

More ALERT may also be triggered when the configuration parser doesn't
understand a keyword while those keywords used to be silently ignored.
(check alertif_too_many_args_idx() ).

So by definition, many configuration may be broken.

Baptiste