Re: priority servers in an instance

When trying this, I get:
[ALERT] 056/063556 (24031) : parsing [/etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg:290] : error detected while parsing ACL 'nearly_full'. [ALERT] 056/063556 (24031) : Error reading configuration file : /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg

(haproxy version 1.3.15.7)

source:

	acl nearly_full connslots(fast_mongrels) lt 10
	use_backend everything if nearly_full

also tried:
	acl nearly_full connslots(fast_mongrels) -lt 10
	use_backend everything if nearly_full

hrm...

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Willy Tarreau <w#1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:03:22AM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote:
>> That's really cool. I've been doing it with weighting, but this is much
>> nicer.
>
> it was proposed and developped by someone on the list (I don't remember
> whom right now) for exactly this purpose.
>
>> Am I right in assuming that in this example, when nearly_full is triggered,
>> it will switch entirely to that?
>
> yes, back1 will get traffic only when it's not considered full, and
> back2 will get the excess traffic.
>
>> how does the balance between the two
>> backends happen in this instance?
>
> There's no balance. The second backend only receives overloads. See
> that as a cheap vs expensive pool of servers (or local vs remote).
>
>> Should you just repeat the definition of
>> the first backend within the second to go "wide" with the server spread?
>
> Yes, this seems appropriate depending on your workload. Maybe you'll
> remove "maxqueue" from the second though.
>
> Hoping this helps,
> Willy
>
>
Received on 2009/02/26 07:38