You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I packaged a straightforward Apache reverse-proxy mechanism in our Ansible setup, and I realized in the jam session that this isn't really what we want (but decided not to bog things down at the time worrying about it).
We really have two incompatible configurations; for normal developer testing, and likely for some "customers", the local Apache reverse-proxy is convenient without requiring any external moving pieces.
However, our production and staging server configurations are set up with an external NGINX configuration to reverse-proxy server access from the pbench.perf.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com alias and a specific port. In this case, we need to take a few different steps in configuration:
We don't need to set up the Apache reverse-proxy
We need to open the designated server API port (e.g., 8001) in the firewall so the NGINX can forward to it.
I started thinking about this in terms of my endpoint configuration API when added the Apache reverse-proxy; we need to at least document a clear solution. When I get back to the endpoint configuration, I'll be adding a new config variable to the .cfg file, to specify the node name and port we expect clients to use rather than the actual local port and hostname. E.g.,
We may need a pair of configuration Ansible roles to configure the server appropriately for local or remote reverse-proxy. Ansible could, for example, pull the proxy_host config variable as a fact, and switch between roles to "configure local Apache reverse proxy" and "prepare for a remote reverse proxy". The default proxy_host value is %(host)s which is standard http port 80 on the advertised local Pbench host. If it's pretty much anything else, we could probably assume a remote proxy.
Note that we can't supply the Apache config files to listen on a special external NIC, as we currently do in our lab, because we have no way to know any of that. We can, however, open the rest_port in firewalld to help a bit.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I packaged a straightforward Apache reverse-proxy mechanism in our Ansible setup, and I realized in the jam session that this isn't really what we want (but decided not to bog things down at the time worrying about it).
We really have two incompatible configurations; for normal developer testing, and likely for some "customers", the local Apache reverse-proxy is convenient without requiring any external moving pieces.
However, our production and staging server configurations are set up with an external NGINX configuration to reverse-proxy server access from the
pbench.perf.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com
alias and a specific port. In this case, we need to take a few different steps in configuration:I started thinking about this in terms of my endpoint configuration API when added the Apache reverse-proxy; we need to at least document a clear solution. When I get back to the endpoint configuration, I'll be adding a new config variable to the .cfg file, to specify the node name and port we expect clients to use rather than the actual local port and hostname. E.g.,
We may need a pair of configuration Ansible roles to configure the server appropriately for local or remote reverse-proxy. Ansible could, for example, pull the
proxy_host
config variable as a fact, and switch between roles to "configure local Apache reverse proxy" and "prepare for a remote reverse proxy". The defaultproxy_host
value is%(host)s
which is standard http port 80 on the advertised local Pbench host. If it's pretty much anything else, we could probably assume a remote proxy.Note that we can't supply the Apache config files to listen on a special external NIC, as we currently do in our lab, because we have no way to know any of that. We can, however, open the
rest_port
infirewalld
to help a bit.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: