On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 05:00:27PM +0100, Michael Rennt wrote:
> just tested it and it's working fine.
> Where is haproxy retaining the persistence database or is the old process
> actually handing over the persistence information to the new one in memory?
no, and generally speaking, you should as most as possible avoid to maintain any state in any equipment. Persistence is the worst thing to maintain because (when it is possible), it costs a lot and is generally a sign of poor initial design.
Simply insert a cookie for your persistence and have any process and/or any machine be able to replace the first one at any time.
Willy Received on 2008/03/11 19:00
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/03/11 19:15 CET