Bug #14714
openHAProxy Agent Check
0%
Description
For my load balancing, I ended up needing to use Agent-based checks in HAProxy.
I configured it in my pfSense+ (23.05.1 ; VM in ESXi 6.7) and its HAProxy package (HAProxy devel 0.63_1).
For that, I created the Frontend and the Backend.
In the Backend, I selected None for Healt Check Method to avoid my service blacklisting HAProxy for too many invalid connections.
I also checked the Agent Checks and configured its port.
I left blank the Agent Interval to accept the default.
Bug No 1 :
Error message says "Config is invalid, invalid character "a" in an integer field."
Explanation : The default interval is not written in the config file. As such, the first string that follows Agent-Interval is Agent-Port, which starts with an A instead of being a number.
Workaround is to specify the value explicitly.
Fix : to actually write the default (2000) in the config file when the field is empty.
Bug No 2 :
No checks performed
When reviewing the config file as generated, the SERVER line that describes the backend is missing the command word "check" that enables the agent-checking process.
Workaround is to add that word in the advanced option offered in the top of the form (where SSL checking is also defined).
Fix : the fact that Agent-Checking is itself checked, that check command should be added to every server in that backend.
Updated by Jim Pingle over 1 year ago
- Project changed from pfSense Plus to pfSense Packages
- Category changed from Configuration Backend to haproxy
- Release Notes deleted (
Default)
Please create a separate issue entry for each problem, even if they appear to be related.
Updated by Jacques Bourdeau over 1 year ago
Jim Pingle wrote in #note-1:
Please create a separate issue entry for each problem, even if they appear to be related.
Ok ; can I keep this one for the first bug or should we drop this one and I create 2 ?
Updated by Jim Pingle over 1 year ago
Jacques Bourdeau wrote in #note-2:
Jim Pingle wrote in #note-1:
Please create a separate issue entry for each problem, even if they appear to be related.
Ok ; can I keep this one for the first bug or should we drop this one and I create 2 ?
Yes, that's fine, just create a separate issue for the second bug and this one can be for the first.
Updated by Jacques Bourdeau over 1 year ago
Bug No 2 is now described in Bug #14715