+1. I was waiting for this. Hopefully it can make its way to a release soon
enough.
Pedro.
> On 30 Mar 2016, at 08:39, Baptiste wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Chris Warren wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We use haproxy in an auto-scaling environment. On an auto-scaling event, the
>> hapr
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Chris Warren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We use haproxy in an auto-scaling environment. On an auto-scaling event, the
> haproxy configuration is rewritten to list all existing servers for each
> proxied service. A graceful reload is then performed.
>
> The issue is that by d
Hi Chris,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:38:56PM +, Chris Warren wrote:
> We???re currently testing a patch which adds an ???initial-state up/down???
> option to each server (and the default-server option) - the default behaviour
> remains unchanged:
> https://github.com/beamly/haproxy-1.6/commit/
Hi,
We use haproxy in an auto-scaling environment. On an auto-scaling event, the
haproxy configuration is rewritten to list all existing servers for each
proxied service. A graceful reload is then performed.
The issue is that by default haproxy assumes a server is UP (going down) until
the fir
On 18 Mar 2016, at 03:03, Igor Cicimov
mailto:ig...@encompasscorporation.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Chris Warren
mailto:ch...@beamly.com>> wrote:
Hi,
We use haproxy in an auto-scaling environment. On an auto-scaling event, the
haproxy configuration is rewritten to list all
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Chris Warren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We use haproxy in an auto-scaling environment. On an auto-scaling event,
> the haproxy configuration is rewritten to list all existing servers for
> each proxied service. A graceful reload is then performed.
>
> The issue is that by
6 matches
Mail list logo
