On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:17 PM Julien Pivotto
wrote:
> On 28 Nov 11:02, Baptiste wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:56 AM Julien Pivotto
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 Nov 10:38, Baptiste wrote:
> > > > 'hold valid' still prevents HAProxy from changing the status of the
> > > server
> > > > in c
On 28 Nov 11:02, Baptiste wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:56 AM Julien Pivotto
> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Nov 10:38, Baptiste wrote:
> > > 'hold valid' still prevents HAProxy from changing the status of the
> > server
> > > in current Valid status to an other status for that period of time.
> > > I
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:35 AM Baptiste wrote:
>
> @Willy, since 1.8 (I think), the DNS task is autonomous and not triggered by
> the check anymore.
>
> Second, HAProxy never ever follows up TTLs.
>
> Third, I "fixed" a bug in 2.0.10 which triggers this change of behavior.
> Basically,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:56 AM Julien Pivotto
wrote:
> On 28 Nov 10:38, Baptiste wrote:
> > 'hold valid' still prevents HAProxy from changing the status of the
> server
> > in current Valid status to an other status for that period of time.
> > Imagine your server is UP, DNS is valid, then your
On 28 Nov 10:38, Baptiste wrote:
> 'hold valid' still prevents HAProxy from changing the status of the server
> in current Valid status to an other status for that period of time.
> Imagine your server is UP, DNS is valid, then your server returns NX for 2
> minutes, then the status of the server w
'hold valid' still prevents HAProxy from changing the status of the server
in current Valid status to an other status for that period of time.
Imagine your server is UP, DNS is valid, then your server returns NX for 2
minutes, then the status of the server won't change. If NX is returned for
more t
@Willy, since 1.8 (I think), the DNS task is autonomous and not triggered
by the check anymore.
Second, HAProxy never ever follows up TTLs.
Third, I "fixed" a bug in 2.0.10 which triggers this change of behavior.
Basically, "timeout resolve" which is supposed to be the interval between 2
DNS reso
Hi!
> If it bothers you (I don't really see why), you can increase the "inter"
> value on your servers to check them less often and as such refresh their
> address less often.
You can configure "hold valid " to configure internal caching
(it should be 10 seconds by default though):
I post
Hi Lukas,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:53:03PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> > If it bothers you (I don't really see why), you can increase the "inter"
> > value on your servers to check them less often and as such refresh their
> > address less often.
>
> You can configure "hold valid " to configur
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:25 PM Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Hi Marco,
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:38:03AM +0100, Marco Corte wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I see a strange behaviour of the DNS resolution on version 2.0.9 and 2.0.10,
> > but I do not know since when this happens.
> >
> > On Ubu
Hi Marco,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:38:03AM +0100, Marco Corte wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I see a strange behaviour of the DNS resolution on version 2.0.9 and 2.0.10,
> but I do not know since when this happens.
>
> On Ubuntu 18.04, I set up haproxy to use the local DNS service provided by
> systemd.
Hello!
I see a strange behaviour of the DNS resolution on version 2.0.9 and
2.0.10, but I do not know since when this happens.
On Ubuntu 18.04, I set up haproxy to use the local DNS service provided
by systemd.
Actually I see that haproxy tries to resolve the names every second.
The resoluti
12 matches
Mail list logo
