Hi,
On Thu, 2020-10-29 at 10:21 +0200, Jonathan Matthews wrote:
> I don’t think haproxy is what you’re looking for. You’re looking for more
> than a TCP proxy: you need a DB-specific-protocol-proxy. Haproxy can
> listen for HTTP, above the TCP layer, but not any specific DB protocol
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 03:41, Anand Rao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for a TCP proxy that can proxy the connection between a
> database client and the database server. I want to be able to look at the
> traffic and log the queries etc for mining later. I also want to use the
&g
Hi,
I'm looking for a TCP proxy that can proxy the connection between a database
client and the database server. I want to be able to look at the traffic and
log the queries etc for mining later. I also want to use the proxy to remove
human knowledge of passwords. The users will point
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:49:05PM -0700, g...@desgames.com wrote:
That's something I considered, but the ultimate problem is that the backend
service we're running (gearman) sometimes gets backed up with requests from
our web servers. In this case, the server still looks 'up' (I *think*) but
Hi,
We have a tcp service we'd like to proxy requests to, and we were
investigating haproxy as a possible solution for our requirements. So far,
it doesn't seem like haproxy is suitable but I thought I'd run it by the
community to confirm what I understand to be the case.
What we want is a proxy
Actually, I should clarify something. We don't really actually want the
'black hole' situation I described - instead, what we want is for haproxy to
accept and queue the messages that come in from the requesting server, but
to still deliver them when a backend server becomes available. In this
Hi Guy,
If you only want HAProxy to queue connections and not send that immediate
ok any longer, check out how these folks are doing it to queue to MySQL.
http://flavio.tordini.org/a-more-stable-mysql-with-haproxy/comment-page-1
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:15 PM, g...@desgames.com
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:15 PM, g...@desgames.com g...@desgames.com wrote:
Actually, I should clarify something. We don't really actually want the
'black hole' situation I described - instead, what we want is for haproxy to
accept and queue the messages that come in from the requesting server,
Thanks for the quick reply Carlo, but actually sending the immediate ok *is*
what we want. We just want haproxy to continue queuing the messages and
sending them after it's returned an 'ok' to the requesting server.
The people who wrote that page are basically limiting the number of
connections
That's something I considered, but the ultimate problem is that the backend
service we're running (gearman) sometimes gets backed up with requests from
our web servers. In this case, the server still looks 'up' (I *think*) but
requests from PHP scripts are held up waiting for the gearman server to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:49 PM, g...@desgames.com g...@desgames.com wrote:
That's something I considered, but the ultimate problem is that the backend
service we're running (gearman) sometimes gets backed up with requests from
our web servers. In this case, the server still looks 'up' (I
Hi,
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:16:38 -0800, Jacques whs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
There is some complexity here that isn't warranted at 4 servers but
the redundancy model allows us to do a number of useful things. Also,
while the example has each service existing the same number of times,
in
Hello,
I'm new to HAProxy and am trying to setup a TCP balancing of services using
'shared' least-connection balancing and was wondering if this was possible
with HAProxy. We're partitioning our services across multiple servers and
want to use a 'dual-redundant' type approach to distributing
Hi Willy,
It seems right to implement it.
I'll review this with the team and let you know once we have an
available patch.
regards,
n.
On 04/04/2009, at 03:49, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:29:32PM -0300, Nicolas Cohen wrote:
hi,
i want to use haproxy to
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:43:38AM -0300, Nicolas Cohen wrote:
Hi Willy,
It seems right to implement it.
I'll review this with the team and let you know once we have an
available patch.
Nice, thanks!
Willy
15 matches
Mail list logo
