Re: [PATCH] : Prevent redispatcher from selecting the same server

Hi Krzysztof,

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 01:39:17PM +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >I understand your concern about the default value, but it should be
> >addressed
> >differently IMHO, as other server parameters are getting annoying too. In
> >fact,
> >we simply need a "default server" statement with some reusable values such
> >as
> >"inter", "fall", "rise", "fastinter", "check", "port", "source" and
> >probably
> >other things, and that one should be per-backend, and should be definable
> >in
> >a "defaults" section.
> >
> >What do you think about this ?
>
> Yes, that makes sense. It should be quite easy to do this, all what we
> need here is to make sure it is possible to disable for a specific server
> already per-backend enabled options.

Yes, that's exactly that. Intuitively, I think we can keep the principle of the "no" prefix to disable anything. For instance :  

   default server check inter 1000
   server xxx
   server yyy no check backup

> I'll cook a RFC patch for both
> transcheck and a "default server" statement.

That would be very nice. BTW, I think that we should find another term for "transcheck", as this one is not intuitive at all. I think that the word "inter" should appear in it. Also, while initially I thought about "fastinter", the name would not make much sense if this value can be larger than inter. Maybe something such as "altinter" or simply "inter2" ?

Also, some people have already suggested to consider an optional even slower interval for down servers, because there's not much emergency to detect that a server is going up. This one might be called "downinter". So at the end, we would have :

• the default interval
• a second interval used during init time and state changes
• an optional third interval to replace the default interval when servers are down

Best regards,
Willy Received on 2007/12/30 12:48