On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:10:39PM +0200, Ondrej Stumpf wrote: > I see your point. The thing is, in my setup there is only one frontend. I > ran into this when writing an upgrade script: > 1) disable frontend > 2) perform update of the node with haproxy - this may result in restart of > haproxy > 3) wait for other nodes to be updated > 4) enable frontend > > Problem is, in step 2) the haproxy starts with enabled frontend.
I'm seeing some confusion around the use of the term "node" above, it makes me think that it's a load balancer but since you seem to imply a dependency between nodes, I'm not totally sure. Maybe you mean it's a server instead ? Overall I don't understand the sequence here :-/ > Since > other nodes in the platform may not have been properly updated yet, this is > highly undesirable. I don't understand what operation involves a restart either here. > What I therefore need is to start the haproxy with disabled frontend and > then enable it manually. If you have caused an explicit restart with "disabled" added in the configuration, then I don't see the issue you have by issuing a second restart. Also keep in mind that right now your patch doesn't at all prevent the frontend from starting, it's 100% started, it's only *reported* as stopped on the stats page due to the state inconsistency but as you can verify it, it perfectly handles the traffic you send to it. Regards, Willy
