On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:32 PM Daniel Corbett wrote:
> Hello,
> On 10/17/19 1:47 AM, Baptiste wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for the patch, but I don't think it's accurate.
> What this part of the code aims to do is to "map" a DNS weight into an
> HAProxy weight.
> There is a ratio of 256
Hello,
On 10/17/19 1:47 AM, Baptiste wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the patch, but I don't think it's accurate.
What this part of the code aims to do is to "map" a DNS weight into an
HAProxy weight.
There is a ratio of 256 between both: DNS being in range "0-65535" and
HAProxy in range "0-255
Hi Baptiste,
> The only "bug" I can see here now is that a server's weight can never be 0.
> But nobody reported this as an issue yet.
I can confirm this as a bug; I've just never thought to report it. We've worked
around it in our own setup by having separate backup and active SRV records.
No
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:35 AM Daniel Corbett wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> In #48 it was reported that when using the server-template
>
> directive combined with an SRV record that HAProxy would
> always set the weight to "1" regardless of what the SRV record
> contains.
>
> It was found that in an att
Hello,
On 10/16/19 11:32 PM, Daniel Corbett wrote:
This patch should be backported to 1.8 and 1.9
Sorry, I forgot to indicate that this should be backported to 2.0 also.
Thanks,
-- Daniel
Hello,
In #48 it was reported that when using the server-template
directive combined with an SRV record that HAProxy would
always set the weight to "1" regardless of what the SRV record
contains.
It was found that in an attempt to force a minimum value of "1"
actually ended up forcing "1" in a
6 matches
Mail list logo
