On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:41:51PM +0200, William Lallemand wrote:
> Willy, could you merge them? thanks
done, thanks!
willy
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:35:08PM +0200, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> In case of upgrade from haproxy without -x option to -x, i suppose it will do
> cleanly.
> I try to play with -x, multi-proc (add and remove), upgrade pre -x without
> master-worker and is painful.
> Perhaps i misunderstood (and
> Le 19 juin 2017 à 15:06, William Lallemand a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>>
>> Exactly, use case is to upgrade haproxy from a 1.6/1.7/1.8 compatibility to
>> 1.8 with master worker.
>>
>
> That's insteresting, I will
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>
> Exactly, use case is to upgrade haproxy from a 1.6/1.7/1.8 compatibility to
> 1.8 with master worker.
>
That's insteresting, I will do some tests in order to be able to do this
properly.
>
> It's much simpler than I
> Le 16 juin 2017 à 18:49, William Lallemand a écrit :
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:28:51PM +0200, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
Hi William
>> i try to play with that, but i’m a little confused with the behaviour.
>>
>> In my test, i use
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:28:51PM +0200, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi Emmanuel,
> i try to play with that, but i’m a little confused with the behaviour.
>
> In my test, i use alternatly haproxy upgrade and worker reload (via USR2)
>
> start with upgrade:
> # /usr/sbin/haproxy -f
6 matches
Mail list logo