Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 1598045 - [RFE] Provide a way to custom HAProxy load balancer default configuration [NEEDINFO]
Summary: [RFE] Provide a way to custom HAProxy load balancer default configuration
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RFE
Version: 3.9.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
: 4.1.0
Assignee: Eric Paris
QA Contact: Xiaoli Tian
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-07-04 08:24 UTC by sfu@redhat.com
Modified: 2019-03-12 14:02 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Target Upstream Version:
sdodson: needinfo? (sfu)


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description sfu@redhat.com 2018-07-04 08:24:51 UTC
Description of problem:
Currently,we have no way to set the HAProxy load balancer default configuration in Advanced Installation with Multiple Masters.


Actual results:
need to modify lb default configuration manually.

Expected results:
Provide a way to set the default lb configuration such as add configurable variables for lb section in inventory file.

Additional info:
For example,customer would like to change default balance policy from source to leastconn.

modify the backend check health rule on HAProxy to confirm whether Master reaches the maximum number of requests,not just check if port 8433 is health.

version:ocp 3.9

Comment 1 Scott Dodson 2018-07-05 12:24:17 UTC
The load balancer deployed via openshift-ansible is only meant to demonstrate HA API capabilities and is not intended to be a general purpose configurable load balancer. Does the customer not have another load balancing solution in place?


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.