Hi all,
I'm hoping I can get some advice on how we can improve our failover setup.
At present, we have an active-standby setup. Failover works really well,
but on the standby, none of the backend servers are marked as "up" since
haproxy is bound to the VIP that is currently on the active member (managed
with keepalived). as a result, there's an initial period of a second or two
after the failover triggers and the standby claims the VIP where the
backend servers have not yet passed a health-check on the new active member.
It seems like the easiest way to sort it out would be if the health-checks
weren't also bound to the VIP so that the standby could complete them
successfully. i do still want the proxied requests bound to the VIP though,
forthe benefit of our backends' real-ip configuration.
is that doable? if not, is there some way to have the standby "follow" the
active-member's view on the backends, or another way i haven't seen yet?
Thanks!
Nathan W
I'm hoping I can get some advice on how we can improve our failover setup.
At present, we have an active-standby setup. Failover works really well,
but on the standby, none of the backend servers are marked as "up" since
haproxy is bound to the VIP that is currently on the active member (managed
with keepalived). as a result, there's an initial period of a second or two
after the failover triggers and the standby claims the VIP where the
backend servers have not yet passed a health-check on the new active member.
It seems like the easiest way to sort it out would be if the health-checks
weren't also bound to the VIP so that the standby could complete them
successfully. i do still want the proxied requests bound to the VIP though,
forthe benefit of our backends' real-ip configuration.
is that doable? if not, is there some way to have the standby "follow" the
active-member's view on the backends, or another way i haven't seen yet?
Thanks!
Nathan W