Re: SRV Record Priority Values

2020-03-01 Thread Baptiste
> > I also think we wanted to have "server groups" first in HAProxy before > using the priority. The idea before server groups is that a bunch of server > should be used all together until they fail (or enough have failed), and in > such case, we want to fail over to the next group, and so on (unle

Re: SRV Record Priority Values

2020-03-01 Thread Baptiste
> > What we can do for now, is consider "active" a priority 0 and backup, any > value greater than 0. > > I think that's perfectly acceptable for us. I'm not sure of anyone else on > the mailing list using SRV records, so I don't know who else we could ask > about that. > > Would I have all I need

Re: SRV Record Priority Values

2020-02-28 Thread Luke Seelenbinder
Hi Baptiste, > What this means is that backup status would use priority 0 or 1 or some kind > of. But we burn the remaining 65534 values from this field. That's a concern, for sure. > I also think we wanted to have "server groups" first in HAProxy before using > the priority. The idea before s

Re: SRV Record Priority Values

2020-02-28 Thread Baptiste
> > I suspect that it's more a property of the resolvers than the servers. > I mean, if you know that you're using your DNS servers this way, this > should really have the same meaning for all servers. So you shouldn't > have a per-server option to adjust this behavior but a per-resolvers > section

Re: SRV Record Priority Values

2020-02-27 Thread Luke Seelenbinder
Hi Willy, > Yes it is! They're typically used to drain old user sessions while > progressively taking a server off. Some also use them to let an > overloaded server cool down for a moment with no extra session. This > is completely unrelated to backup servers in fact, which have their > own weight

Re: SRV Record Priority Values

2020-02-27 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Luke, On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Luke Seelenbinder wrote: > Hello List, > > We use SRV records extensively (for internal service discovery, etc.). > > When the patch was integrated to support a 0 weighted SRV records, I thought > that would simplify our setup, because at the ti

SRV Record Priority Values

2020-02-27 Thread Luke Seelenbinder
Hello List, We use SRV records extensively (for internal service discovery, etc.). When the patch was integrated to support a 0 weighted SRV records, I thought that would simplify our setup, because at the time, I thought 0 weight meant "backup server" without a "backup" flag on the server. Unf