On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:55 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> That still doesn't seal the can of worms: once there are more than one
> address per family or addresses change, it's our connection and
> pooling models that need to be revisited, how many different addresses
> to try connecting to, how
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 5:15 PM Guillaume Quintard
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 9:49 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>>
>> One problem I have (and that you should be familiar with) is that
>> portable interfaces we have that *respect* the system configuration
>> (hosts file, nsswitch
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 5:29 PM Justin Lloyd wrote:
>
> I’m definitely watching this topic, considering I’m planning on moving to
> Varnish Enterprise next year and putting a cluster in ECS, if not Fargate, so
> being able to easily handle dynamic IPs would be extremely helpful.
Like I implied
I’m definitely watching this topic, considering I’m planning on moving to
Varnish Enterprise next year and putting a cluster in ECS, if not Fargate, so
being able to easily handle dynamic IPs would be extremely helpful.
From: varnish-misc
On Behalf Of Guillaume Quintard
Sent: Monday, October
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 9:49 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> One problem I have (and that you should be familiar with) is that
> portable interfaces we have that *respect* the system configuration
> (hosts file, nsswitch configuration etc) are not providing enough
> information. For example it
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 3:45 PM Guillaume Quintard
wrote:
>
> I think it makes sense for Varnish to natively support backends changing
> their IPs. I do get the performance argument but now that there is a
> cloud/container market and that Varnish has proven to be useful in it, this
> basic
I think it makes sense for Varnish to natively support backends changing
their IPs. I do get the performance argument but now that there is a
cloud/container market and that Varnish has proven to be useful in it, this
basic functionality should be brought in.
Would it be acceptable to add a
