On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 08:03:11AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 02:36:36PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Willy, > > > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:29:12PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > Sorry for the long delay and thanks for waiting. I've just reviewed your > > > two patch series (16 total). They're pretty good in my opinion. > > > > likewise, sorry for the delay. > > No problem! > > > > I'm seeing a few points we'll probably have to adjust : > > > - normally, health checks reserve file descriptors (one per checked > > > server), > > > here we'll have to count up to two fds when the two checks are > > > enabled. > > > I don't remember where this is done, maybe in haproxy.c. > > > > Sure, I will look into that and update my patches accordingly. > > > > > - I think that we'll soon have to support an agent-addr parameter, which > > > means that ->addr will have to move from check_common to struct check. > > > > Sure, I will move that. I will probably also implement agent-addr > > as a way to test it. > > > > > The reason for the last point is that I'm pretty sure that a number of > > > uses > > > of the agent will involve checking a component to get reliability > > > information > > > about the server itself. It might simply be because the server runs on > > > multiple addresses, or in transparent mode. But it might also be because > > > a monitoring station is checked to retrieve the server status. > > > > > > Also what I like with your approach with the "struct check" is that it > > > could make it easier to combine tests later. Many people ask how it is > > > possible to check two ports at a time and AND them. Till now it was not > > > possible but now it starts to be possible. > > > > Thanks. I think there are a few assumptions lingering in my implementation, > > but it should not be difficult to weed them out and use the code in a more > > generic manner. > > > > > We already have a massive number of patches pending for dev18, so I think > > > I'll issue dev18 now then open post-dev18 with your patches. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Should I re-post my series or make the changes you suggest above > > as incremental patches on top of my existing patches? > > As you like. If you make fixes to existing patches, I prefer that you merge > them so that we reduce the number of "incomplete" patches. But if you improve > things, I'm perfectly fine with additional patches. Do as you see fit !
Thanks, got it.
