Op 13-01-19 om 18:47 schreef Willy Tarreau:
> Hi Olivier,
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 06:40:56PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
>>> Indeed, this function should not have any special effect in this case,
>>> it is needed to prepend this at the beginning of chk_report_conn_err() :
>>>
>>> if (!
Hi Olivier,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 06:40:56PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > Indeed, this function should not have any special effect in this case,
> > it is needed to prepend this at the beginning of chk_report_conn_err() :
> >
> > if (!check->server)
> > return;
> >
> > We
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 01:11:29PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Pieter,
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 01:00:33AM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
> > Thanks for this 'change in behavior' ;). Indeed the mailbomb is fixed, and
> > it seems the expected mails get generated and delivered, but a segfault a
Hi Pieter,
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 09:30:39PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
> Hi Willy, Olivier,
>
> Op 12-1-2019 om 13:11 schreef Willy Tarreau:
> > Hi Pieter,
> >
> > it is needed to prepend this at the beginning of chk_report_conn_err() :
> >
> > if (!check->server)
> > return;
> >
Hi Willy, Olivier,
Op 12-1-2019 om 13:11 schreef Willy Tarreau:
Hi Pieter,
it is needed to prepend this at the beginning of chk_report_conn_err() :
if (!check->server)
return;
We need to make sure that check->server is properly tested everywhere.
With a bit of luck thi
Hi Pieter,
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 01:00:33AM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
> Thanks for this 'change in behavior' ;). Indeed the mailbomb is fixed, and
> it seems the expected mails get generated and delivered, but a segfault also
> happens on occasion. Not with the regtest as it was, but with a few mino
Hi Olivier,
Op 11-1-2019 om 19:17 schreef Olivier Houchard:
Ok so erm, I'd be lying if I claimed I enjoy working on the check code, or
that I understand it fully. However, after talking with Willy and Christopher,
I think I may have comed with an acceptable solution, and the attached patch
shoul
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 06:53:11PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:36:04AM +0100, Johan Hendriks wrote:
> > Thanks all.
> > No rush on my side as it is a test machine, at least we do know when a
> > backend server fails.
> > With all this mail the mail server ar
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:36:04AM +0100, Johan Hendriks wrote:
> Thanks all.
> No rush on my side as it is a test machine, at least we do know when a
> backend server fails.
> With all this mail the mail server are giving alarms too :D
>
> I disable the mail feature for now.
>
> Thanks agai
Thanks all.
No rush on my side as it is a test machine, at least we do know when a
backend server fails.
With all this mail the mail server are giving alarms too :D
I disable the mail feature for now.
Thanks again Pieter, Willy and Oliver for all your work.
Op 10-01-19 om 20:05 schreef PiBa-NL:
Hi Pieter,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 08:05:47PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
> Hi Johan, Olivier, Willy,
>
> Op 10-1-2019 om 17:00 schreef Johan Hendriks:
> > I just updated to 1.9.1 on my test system.
> >
> > We noticed that when a server fails we now get tons of mail, and with
> > tons we mean a lot.
>
Hi Johan, Olivier, Willy,
Op 10-1-2019 om 17:00 schreef Johan Hendriks:
I just updated to 1.9.1 on my test system.
We noticed that when a server fails we now get tons of mail, and with
tons we mean a lot.
After a client backend server fails we usually get 1 mail on 1.8.x now
with 1.9.1 within
I just updated to 1.9.1 on my test system.
We noticed that when a server fails we now get tons of mail, and with
tons we mean a lot.
After a client backend server fails we usually get 1 mail on 1.8.x now
with 1.9.1 within 1 minute we have the following.
mailq | grep -B2 l...@testdomain.nl | grep
13 matches
Mail list logo
