On 22.01.20 08:23, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:06:20PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote:
Nuster evolves in parallel of
HAProxy. It is a fork of it, it is not a patchset on top of it. The nuster
developer never tried to make its project compatible with HAProxy. Or at
least, he never asked anything on the mailing list. So, of course, it is its
own right. There is no problem with that. But it could be a good idea to
have a better view on how the project will evolve to evaluate the pertinence
of a nuster plugin. Honestly, if you ever do the effort to work on it, it
could be better to rewrite all the project as a plugin of HAProxy and not a
fork of it. If so, it is probably a better idea to keep it in a separate
repository though. This will be easier to push new features, without the
burden to submit the patches on the ML.
I totally agree with this. If some minor extensions to haproxy would be
needed to do his thing better (maybe one hook here and there), we could
get them merged to ease his maintenance as long as they have zero impact
on the rest. But given that the project has been evolving for a few years
now, occasionally rebasing on new version, I guess the developer possibly
makes a living from his fork and has no particular interest in seeing his
code more easily used without him being kept in the loop. Of couse I could
be totally wrong but that's what it makes me think of. I don't think we
should bother him. He took care of renaming the project so as to present
it as a self-contained cache and not as a load balancer, and as such he
doesn't cause any harm to the haproxy project. And he seems to be doing
his job right by regularly merging stable branches, so I'm not seeing
anything wrong there that we should encourage to change. If all projects
forks were done this way, we'd all have less crap installed on our machines.
Of course it would be nice if he would participate a bit to the project,
but well, how could we expect any contribution back from anyone using
haproxy ? He will already have a tough work migrating to HTX :-)
Aleks, if you're interested in this project, I think you should contact
him. I suspect he will tell you he only covers the caching part and uses
haproxy only as the HTTP/TCP engine to run his cache, as is visible in
his example config, and that if you want to use a load balancer, he will
invite you to use a separate haproxy process. And that's important given
that he's doing file system accesses (hence high latencies and limited
security)!
Thanks Christopher and Willy for your feedback.
I will go back and think about the possible options ;-)
Regards,
Willy
Regards
Aleks