Right, and my point is that you can make it dynamic without changing the way haproxy itself works. What your asking for seems like making haproxy itself overcomplicated, especially for people with simple deployments. But hey, maybe I'm 100% wrong. In fact, let's operate on that assumption.
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Heatwole <ke...@heatwoles.us> wrote: > I guess I wasn't clear again. I'm not talking about "editing" the > configuration file and reloading HAProxy. > > My suggestion is simply to implement a dynamic interface to the backend > servers so they can change the current behavior of the HAProxy instance > (especially in a load balanced HAProxy backend). > > I'll leave it to the developers to figure out what can be dynamically > changed and if adding a server to a backend is too complex, then that won't > be part of the interface. > > On Jan 9, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Zachary Stern <z...@enternewmedia.com> wrote: > > I understood completely KT. It's perfectly possible to add new lines to > the haproxy config dynamically and automatically using things like puppet. > > E.g. my iptables configurations are dyanmically generated as I spin up new > servers, using puppet and the rackspace API. You could do something > similar, regardless of cloud or not. > > When I spin up a new server, it's connected to puppet, tagged as a certain > kind of server, and dynamically added as a backend to haproxy if > appropriate. > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:16 PM, KT Walrus <ke...@my.walr.us> wrote: > >> I think you might have misunderstood. By "adding new server", I mean to >> add it as a server in HAProxy configuration. That is, the effect is to add >> the "server" line for the new server into the config file. This has >> nothing to do with launching the server in the cloud. It is the reverse of >> marking a server DOWN, except that the server being marked UP was not >> originally included in the list of servers for the HAProxy backend. >> >> On Jan 9, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Zachary Stern <z...@enternewmedia.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Heatwole <ke...@heatwoles.us>wrote: >> >>> 4. Adding new server to backend by having configuration check return >>> new server configuration. >>> >> >> I don't know about the other features, but this one I think violates the >> UNIX philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". There are already plenty >> of tools you can use to achieve this with HAproxy, like puppet or chef, and >> things like the ruby fog gem for cloud provisioning, etc. >> >> >> -- >> >> zachary alex stern I systems architect >> >> o: 212.363.1654 x106 | f: 212.202.6488 | z...@enternewmedia.com >> >> 60-62 e. 11th street, 4th floor | new york, ny | 10003 >> >> www.enternewmedia.com >> >> >> > > > -- > > zachary alex stern I systems architect > > o: 212.363.1654 x106 | f: 212.202.6488 | z...@enternewmedia.com > > 60-62 e. 11th street, 4th floor | new york, ny | 10003 > > www.enternewmedia.com > > > -- zachary alex stern I systems architect o: 212.363.1654 x106 | f: 212.202.6488 | z...@enternewmedia.com 60-62 e. 11th street, 4th floor | new york, ny | 10003 www.enternewmedia.com
