Hot answers tagged

4

Could this possibly be because it's doing a lookup or trying to curl foo.some-site.com, and it may be getting directed to the other server? Yes, most definitely. LE needs to connect back to the server you're running the LE client on, as part of the domain verification challenge-response process. Without getting into details, the LE client actually ...


2

DSR is implemented in the Linux Kernel (IPVS) which only works with LVS (Linux Virtual Server). You will also need a health checking daemon like keepalived or ldirectord. BTW DSR does not work in Amazon AWS or in Azure due the to the network virtualisation security that they use. It won't work in things like Docker either. ...


2

The most probable cause is that some other process is already bound to port 80 (e.g. another webserver). Before starting haproxy I would suggest to check if port 80 is free to bind nestat -anp | grep ":80" If result is not empty than some process already "took" port 80 and your haproxy won't be able to bind to it (especially when you try to bind on all ...


2

Usually when you are using a cookie it comes in a response from the back-end server with a "set-cookie" header. This is usually in response to a login. If this doesn't happen then HAProxy will not be able to stick you to the same back-end server This option allows HAProxy to "learn" about a cookie based on a HTTP Request not just a HTTP Response with ...


2

You might need to escape the space before "example.com", i.e. option httpchk HEAD / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost:\ example.com Note the backslash before "example.com". Alternatively, you might try adding: http-send-name-header Host in that backend config. Hope this helps!


1

The problem with what you're trying is that it you're treating the entire configuration as though it were constantly being parsed and interpreted at runtime, which of course is not the case. Certain arguments to the various directives are static, others dynamic, but server declarations are most definitely static. A server represents exactly one target ...


1

The test you appear to be wanting to impose is this: A && !(B || C) ...but that is not logically equivalent to what you've written, which is essentially this... (A && !B) || (A && !C) The logical equivalent of A && !(B || C) without using parentheses for precedence is actually this: A && !B && !C So ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible