You were right, there were more HAProxy processes running in the server,
that’s why it kept sending connections to the OLD_NAME_FRONTEND. I killed
all the other processes and everything is working fine now.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

De: PiBa-NL [mailto:piba.nl....@gmail.com] 
Enviado el: sábado, 28 de noviembre de 2015 07:39
Para: Mauricio Cacho Gutiérrez; haproxy@formilux.org
Asunto: Re: Configuring Load Balance HAProxy

 

There is no cache to delete..

Can you check there is only 1 active haproxy process running?

Depending on how you restart haproxy it could be that old existing
connections are still served by the old process that should shutdown once
all connections are closed. The old stopping process should not serve new
connections if it properly received the shutdown signal from the new
process.

Op 27-11-2015 om 20:24 schreef Mauricio Cacho Gutiérrez:

Hi, I’ve configured HAProxy to load balance between servers running
Postgresql. At first, I setup 3 servers, one of which was the master and the
other two slaves. It worked fine; now I want only the slaves to be available
to HAProxy, so I deleted the line with the master configuration in the
haproxy.cfg, stopped the service and started it again, but I’ve notice in
the logs that HAProxy is still sending connections to the master server,
even though there’s no line in the haproxy.cfg with that IP. So I tried
changing the name in the front_end to ensure the changes where taking
effect, so I changed the name, stopped the service haproxy and started it
again; in the logs it displays 

                “Proxy new_name_frontend started”

                “Proxy new_name_backend started”

So nothing about the old frontend name or backend… But when I connect via
terminal to the server running HAProxy, it displays something like:

                “[ip_client]:[port] [date] OLD_NAME_FRONTEND….”

And it’s using the master server… Is there some caché or something like that
that I should erase so HAProxy has no clue of the master server anymore?

 

PS: I’m using the same port.

 

Thanks

 

Reply via email to