Hello Willy. On 11 February 2010 05:21, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:56:14PM +0000, Nick Chalk wrote: >> I believe so, following Cyril Bonté's suggestions last week. I'm still >> testing it, though. > OK, we talked with Cyril about all the issues in this patch, so it's > possible that you both finally got it right !
Please don't expect a complete solution! All I've done so far is slightly modified the patch's checking code, not the configuration parameters. >> 2010/2/10 Krzysztof Ol??dzki <o...@ans.pl>: >> > Yep, it is worth to try it, but it is still a dirty fix. I have idea how to >> > make it right, but haven't been able to find time to do it, yet. >> >> Thanks - I'll try that tomorrow, and report my findings. With an increase in the minimum response length, that patch solves the problem. The code now detects an incomplete response, and retries until it has the complete page. Krzysztof, could you describe your idea for a clean fix? I'm working through the rc1 code, but I'm still some way from understanding the checking system. >> What was confusing me was that the test would succeed a fair >> proportion of the time! > > That's typical of such packet-based parsing. I need to do some more reading on sockets programming! Thanks, Nick. -- Nick Chalk. Loadbalancer.org Ltd. Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779 http://www.loadbalancer.org/
