Comment 11 for bug 702024

On 11 February 2011 14:07, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Martin Pool <email address hidden> wrote:
>> +1.  In some ways having a http status indication seems like an
>> unnecessary frill: if the server is accepting tcp connections it's
>> reasonable for haproxy to send connections to it.  If it's accepting
>> connections but misbehaving then a sysadmin can kill it.
>
> Its not really a frill, its very useful to distinguish graceful
> restarts from down services; simply turning off the listening port
> shows as down; having the status page change appropriately tells
> haproxy to quiesce it. That said, it turns out 404 seems to be the
> right status code to use, but I'm not going to chase that until we've
> got several moving parts sorted:
>  - appservers using the quiesce framework
>  - forking service live
>
> I'm -1 (yes, veto) on shutting the listening port to indicated 'being
> quiesced'.

Fair enough. I can see how having that show up in the haproxy page
would be useful, even if haproxy's actually behaviour of sending
requests elsewhere would be the same. (Or would it actually be
different?)