[PATCH] Optionally configure a separate port for health probes

Geoff Simmons geoff at uplex.de
Sun Dec 7 20:08:36 CET 2014

Hello all,

With the patch in the attachment, you can add a "port" field to a probe
definition, so that a backend can respond to health probes from a
different port.

By default, probes work as before (the port is the same as in the
backend definition if you don't have the port field), so existing
configs are unchanged.

This is a Varnish 4 re-implementation of a solution we've had working in
production under Varnish 3 for about a year and a half. Our use case is
a third-party app as the backend, for which the vendor supplies a health
check under a different port, and our developers can't easily change
that. (The app is SD LFredhopper.)

The patch adds some vtc tests that are not in order in the numbering
(starting at c00100.vtc and v00100.vtc), so as not to overlap with
anyone else's tests. But of course they can be easily renumbered.

** * * UPLEX - Nils Goroll Systemoptimierung

Scheffelstraße 32
22301 Hamburg

Tel +49 40 2880 5731
Mob +49 176 636 90917
Fax +49 40 42949753

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-add-a-port-field-to-probe-definitions-to-allow-backe.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 14259 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20141207/545f23c1/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20141207/545f23c1/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list