On 2009-12-10 08:39, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>>> What are those "events" supposed to check for ? I've not found them >>> anywhere else. >> Ineed. It is for pure TCP, where we can only track timeouts, resets, >> etc. However, I'm looking for a good place where to attach those checks, >> and for a better name - maybe "l3events"?
It's a matter of definition, like if 0 is or is not a natural number. For me timeout *is* one of events, but no problem - we can choose a name that is intuitive for everyone.
> Maybe simply "errors" ? The
> other ones are not errors, just plain valid status codes after all.
OK, but we are not only going to observing errors, but also succesfull connections to clear error counter. So maybe simple "layer4" (for tcp) and "layer7" (for http) might be OK?
>>> I mean, maybe we could have sort of an error-react prefix >>> with its few parameters afterwards. Maybe something in that spirit : >>> >>> error-react to <event> by <action> after <limit> >>> >>> It's just an idea, not necessarily something to follow. >> Something like "error-react to http-response by failcheck after 10"?
Right. A backend/default value is important. However, I think we:
So, I'll be more happy with "on-error fail-check" than with "by fail-check", etc.
>>> Does this mean that we're now forced to at least switch to fast >>> inter in case of error or can we still use the current behaviour ? >> Yes, by simply not enabling the functionality. By default it is not enabled.
Sure thing. ;)
Krzysztof Olędzki Received on 2009/12/10 19:17
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2009/12/10 19:30 CET