Newbie question: In response to http-health-chk string: "HEAD /index.html HTTP/1.0" , if my server responds responds with only one line: "HTTP/1.0 200 OK " , will the health will be accepted ok. (HAproxy in not accepting this health-response in my setup).
Does the health-chk response needs to be complete set of headers ?? Date: Server: content-type: content-length ... ... On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Sanjeev Kumar <replysku...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 servB 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 >> >> >
