Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:51:20AM -0400, John Lauro wrote: > I think there might be a better way, but you could run the check against a > different port. On that other port, you could have it run your custom check > and return an OK response if your check passes and fail if it doesn't.
That's generally what is done. However, I'd like to point out that a patch has been proposed to implement explicit content validation (ECV) on HTTP but it should be easily adapted to non-HTTP services. I've not merged it right now because it needs some fixing (risks of segfault if the server does not return a content length or returns an incorrect one). That said, we need a more generic health-check framework. Many people are asking for send/expect, others for lists of rotating URLs, others for an easier ability to send headers. We should put all that down and try to find how to implement something better. Regards, Willy
