On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:07 AM Igor Cicimov
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:36 AM Aleksandar Lazic
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vijay.
>>
>> Am 14.11.2018 um 10:14 schrieb Vijay Bais:
>> > Hello Aleksandar,
>> >
>> > We already considered using haproxy maps but we still have to define N
>> backends
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:36 AM Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Hi Vijay.
>
> Am 14.11.2018 um 10:14 schrieb Vijay Bais:
> > Hello Aleksandar,
> >
> > We already considered using haproxy maps but we still have to define N
> backends
> > for corresponding N keys in the map file.
> > I'm looking more at
Hi Vijay.
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:14 schrieb Vijay Bais:
> Hello Aleksandar,
>
> We already considered using haproxy maps but we still have to define N
> backends
> for corresponding N keys in the map file.
> I'm looking more at an implementation with single backend definition with the
> server
Hello Aleksandar,
We already considered using haproxy maps but we still have to define N
backends for corresponding N keys in the map file.
I'm looking more at an implementation with single backend definition with
the server options as placeholders.
Ex. Using maps would look something like this
Hi.
Am 14.11.2018 um 08:46 schrieb Vijay Bais:
> Hello,
>
> We have a requirement wherein a single generic backend with server options
> configured as placeholders, which will resolve on the fly or at runtime.
>
> Currently, we have to define multiple backends (has to be hardcoded) and
>
Hello,
We have a requirement wherein a single generic backend with server options
configured as placeholders, which will resolve on the fly or at runtime.
Currently, we have to define multiple backends (has to be hardcoded) and
select them using the *use_backend* keyword.
Kindly help us with
6 matches
Mail list logo