Hi again, Sorry, it's the opposite direction of that. Varnish is the client in this case (it sits behind a few other pieces, but that's the relevant for the bug). Full flow:
Client -> HAProxy -> Varnish -> HAProxy -> HAProxy Upstream application. That make more sense? :) Best, Luke — Luke Seelenbinder Stadia Maps | Founder & CEO stadiamaps.com > On Sep 26, 2024, at 18:48, Christopher Faulet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 26/09/2024 à 17:18, Luke Seelenbinder a écrit : >> Hi Christopher, >> Thanks for the response. >>> Sorry, I don't understand, the response was successfully sent to the client >>> when this happens or not ? It is "just" an issue with the termination state >>> or there is also an issue with the response itself ? >> It's also an issue with the response. The chain is: >> Varnish (status: 503) -> HAProxy (status: 200; termination: SD--) -> HAProxy >> Upstream (status: 200, termination: ----) > > So now, I'm really puzzled. Varnish returns a 503 and it is handled as a 200 > by HAProxy. I don't know how it is possible. > > -- > Christopher Faulet >
