Re: Truncated health check response from real servers

From: Willy Tarreau <>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:06:04 +0200

Hi Anze,

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 01:48:12AM +0200, Anze wrote:
> > Indeed it never made it in. Each time I look at it, I realize that
> > cleaning it up and fixing it will take more time than what I have
> > available to work on it :-/
> I can understand that completely. :)
> Actually, I am not that much interested in the patch per-se, I would just like
> to check the body of the check-response and compare it to a string for more
> reliable checks.

It's what the patch does.

> I have included my original mail (and reasoning) on the
> subject below. It's not on top of my priority list right now either, still...
> sooner or later we might get bitten by it.
> I'd love to help out coding, but sockets and C++ are not my strong points
> (though I am comfortable in C).

So you're welcome, haproxy is plain C, and I don't understand C++ either ;-)

> I can help with testing though if needed. Let
> me know if it helps and if/when you find time for this. :)
> Or, if you wish, I can take Nick's patch and extract just the parts with
> checking the response body? Can you point out some of the errors so I can
> avoid them?

I've rediffed the patch against 1.4.8, you can find it here :

Most of the things I'm particularly concerned are in httpchk_expect() :

As you see, there's not even any socket work on this, so if you feel comfortable with this, feel free to contribute, I think this is the patch that received the most different contributors' work.

Once it's OK, I'm willing to merge it into next 1.4 stable because I know that several people would like to use it, and it doesn't affect other parts of code, so there's no risk of regression if it breaks.

Willy Received on 2010/07/10 10:06

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2010/07/10 10:15 CEST