On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:21:28AM +0200, Thomas Pedoussaut wrote: > > On 23/05/2023 11:14, Matteo Piva wrote: > > Seems that it's considered an expected behavior to consider > > optimistically the server as UP > > when leaving MAINT mode, even if the L4 health checks are not completed yet.
To be more precise, at boot time, servers start with one last point of health. This makes sure they get a definitive verdict with the very first health check. In parallel, maintenance stops health checks, so if you put a server in maintenance before its first check, my take is that its check is still in the same state so that when you leave maintenance, it is still up with one last check to be performed. I could of course be proven wrong, but that's what I have in mind with the operational status and the administrative state which are two independent things. > > I consider that a quite annoying feature, but maybe I'm approaching at this > > in a wrong way. > > > > Waiting for others to comment such issue to better understand. > I have the exact same issue. I'm inserting servers on the fly from info I > get from my orchestration backend (AWS ECS), and they fail the first few > requests before L7 checks flag them down. I understand this, and others have the opposite case in fact, i.e. with slow checks, they don't want to take ages to reinsert a previously disabled server in the farm. Normally using the existing API you could forcefully mark the server's check as down using this before leaving maintenance: set server <backend>/<server> health [ up | stopping | down ] Doesn't it work to force it to down before leaving maintenance and wait for it to succeed its checks ? That would give this to leave maintenance: set server blah health down; set server blah state ready By the way that reminds me that a long time ago we envisioned a server option such as "init-state down" but with the ability to add servers on the fly via the CLI it seemed a bit moot precisely because you should be able to do the above. But again, do not hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong somewhere, my goal is not to reject any change but to make sure we're not trying to do something that's already possible (and possibly not obvious, I concede). Willy
