Need clarification on using 2nd port for http health-check. If I define my config as my App to serve port-999 and respond to Http-healthChk on port-81:
... listen 192.168.1.2: 999 mode http option httpchk server servA 192.168.1.4:999 check port 81 server servA 192.168.1.5:999 check port 81 backup ........ Will this work ? Does it require any kind of configuration on server side? thanks, -sanjeev kumar On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > 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 > >
