Hi Pavlos, On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 09:49:38PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote: > > diff --git a/doc/configuration.txt b/doc/configuration.txt > > index 85d94d9..13a879e 100644 > > --- a/doc/configuration.txt > > +++ b/doc/configuration.txt > > @@ -14181,8 +14181,8 @@ S (Servers). > > switched away from. > > 17. status [LFBS]: status (UP/DOWN/NOLB/MAINT/MAINT(via)...) > > 18. weight [..BS]: server weight (server), total weight (backend) > > - 19. act [..BS]: server is active (server), number of active servers > > (backend) > > - 20. bck [..BS]: server is backup (server), number of backup servers > > (backend) > > + 19. act [..BS]: number of active servers (backend), server is active > > (server) > > + 20. bck [..BS]: number of backup servers (backend), server is backup > > (server) > > 21. chkfail [...S]: number of failed checks. (Only counts checks failed > > when > > the server is up.) > > 22. chkdown [..BS]: number of UP->DOWN transitions. The backend counter > > counts > > > > I could be stupid or missing something but I don't know what it provides, > > nor why the "weight" line was not switched if the purpose is to have backend > > prior to server. I suspect you where hit by something unclear in the doc and > > which should be clarified, but that's not obvious to me :-/ > > > > Could you please enlighten us ? > > The order of description doesn't match the order of types for the field > name. Sorry for not being clear.
Ah OK I didn't catch this small difference, I thought it was just a matter of preference for alignment or whatever in the doc. > Weight field needs also a swap of the description, I missed it. > If this patch makes sense I will re-send it with a change also for the > weight field. Sure, feel free to do so! > Sorry again for the very response, No problem :-) Thanks! Willy
