Hello! Any news in this topic? Is there anything wrong with my patch? Michał
2017-02-04 9:38 GMT+01:00 Michał <creating....@gmail.com>: > Hi, > I checked it and during synthetic tests it worked. I use same > mechanism as origin agent-check, so it's ready to merge. > > It doesn't need to be backported. > > 2017-01-27 15:38 GMT+01:00 Michał <creating....@gmail.com>: > >> Hello, >> >> So here's patch, which includes all functionalities I think about. >> It propagates the response for every tracking server without changing it >> and without intercepting it. In my opinion we should propagate relative >> and absolute weights, because if you use weight=0 server's to offload >> checks then you can send relative weight change and 0 will stay where it >> is. >> >> Regards, >> Michał >> >> >> 2017-01-20 10:54 GMT+01:00 Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: >> >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:45:57PM +0100, Micha?? wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > We use track's in haproxy to minimize check traffic in some situations >>> and >>> > after my last patch we are probably going to switch to agent-checks for >>> > live management of weights and statuses. One problem I see now - track >>> > don't propagate weight setting to trackers, so if we set agent-check on >>> > track we can manage status only. >>> > >>> > My first PoC solution works good, so I thought about introducing >>> something >>> > like agent-track or track-agent directive set on backends (or maybe it >>> > should be default, non-configurable behaviour) to propagate agent-check >>> > responses from main check to all tracking backends. Both default >>> behaviour >>> > and directive approach are small changes in code, but a little bigger >>> in >>> > functionality. >>> > >>> > In my opinion if we set agent-check on backend which is tracked by >>> others - >>> > it should propagate agent-check weight response to those tracking >>> backend >>> > and set weight on them too. Configurable or not - it will be good >>> feature. >>> >>> I think we at least propagate the DRAIN state which is equivalent to >>> weight == 0. If so I too think we should propagate *relative* weights. >>> Agent-checks can return a relative weight (eg: 50%, 100%, 150%) or an >>> absolute weight (eg: 10, 20). If you have two farms configured like this >>> : >>> >>> backend farm1 >>> server new1 1.1.1.1:8000 weight 10 agent-check >>> server new2 1.1.1.2:8000 weight 10 agent-check >>> >>> backend farm2 >>> server new1 1.1.1.1:8000 weight 20 track farm1/new1 >>> server new2 1.1.1.2:8000 weight 20 track farm1/new2 >>> server old1 1.1.1.3:8000 weight 10 check >>> server old2 1.1.1.4:8000 weight 10 check >>> >>> Then you want the weight changes on farm1 to be applied proportionally >>> to farm2 (ie: a ratio of the configured absolute weight, which is iweight >>> IIRC). >>> >>> Otherwise that sounds quite reasonable to me given that the agent-check's >>> purpose is to provide a more accurate vision of the server's health, and >>> that tracking is made to share the same vision across multiple farms. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Willy >>> >> >> >> >
