Re: Official haproxy blog uses a stickiness table of size 1 (just 1, no suffix). Is this OK?

2016-01-08 Thread Mike MacCana
(re-adding list as I accidentally cut it off previously) Thanks Baptiste, that's perfectly clear. Is 'change the config and reload' the best way to do manual failover? Or is there some kind of signal I can send haproxy to make it 'flip' between backends? On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Baptiste

Re: Official haproxy blog uses a stickiness table of size 1 (just 1, no suffix). Is this OK?

2016-01-05 Thread Baptiste
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Mike MacCana wrote: > I'm investigating active/passive HAProxy setups and came across the > following from the official HAProxy blog. At > http://blog.haproxy.com/2014/01/17/emulating-activepassing-application-clustering-with-haproxy/ > > backend bk_app >stic

Re: Official haproxy blog uses a stickiness table of size 1 (just 1, no suffix). Is this OK?

2016-01-04 Thread Igor Cicimov
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Mike MacCana wrote: > I'm investigating active/passive HAProxy setups and came across the > following from the official HAProxy blog. At http://blog.haproxy > .com/2014/01/17/emulating-activepassing-application-clustering-with- > haproxy/ > > backend bk_app >

Official haproxy blog uses a stickiness table of size 1 (just 1, no suffix). Is this OK?

2016-01-04 Thread Mike MacCana
I'm investigating active/passive HAProxy setups and came across the following from the official HAProxy blog. At http://blog.haproxy .com/2014/01/17/emulating-activepassing-application-clustering-with-haproxy/ backend bk_app stick-table type ip size 1 nopurge peers LB The size of 1 seems odd