Hi Lukas,
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 09:52:33PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> In my tests your patch does the job and redispatch does work for
> consistent source or uri hashing, but only if hash-balance-factor is
> set. If I comment hash-balance-factor out, the redispatch does not
> occur:
>
>
Hi Willy,
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 15:54, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I'm not 100% sure whether "option redispatch" was only intended to
> > break cookie persistence, but not other lb algorithms. Docs are
> > ambiguous about this.
>
> I think you meant hashing instead of cookie persistence. But
Hi again Lukas,
please have a look at this patch proposal. I think it could do the job,
but I have only build-tested it, nothing more.
Thanks,
Willy
diff --git a/include/proto/lb_chash.h b/include/proto/lb_chash.h
index a0ebf696e..679dff363 100644
--- a/include/proto/lb_chash.h
+++
Hi Lukas,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:07:27PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> > redispatch never worked for hash based alghoritms, as the code
> > (BE_LB_LKUP_CHTREE -> chash_get_next_server()) would only have been
> > called for BE_LB_KIND_RR, which doesn't make sense. Fix this by also
> > going
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 23:04, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>
> redispatch never worked for hash based alghoritms, as the code
For the commit:
s/alghoritms/algorithms/
Lukas
Hello,
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 23:04, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>
> redispatch never worked for hash based alghoritms, as the code
> (BE_LB_LKUP_CHTREE -> chash_get_next_server()) would only have been
> called for BE_LB_KIND_RR, which doesn't make sense. Fix this by also
> going down this code path
6 matches
Mail list logo