Hi Anze,
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 09:28:09AM +0200, Anze wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Saturday 10 July 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > Actually, I am not that much interested in the patch per-se, I would just
> > > like to check the body of the check-response and compare it to a string
> > > for mor
Hi Willy,
On Saturday 10 July 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Actually, I am not that much interested in the patch per-se, I would just
> > like to check the body of the check-response and compare it to a string
> > for more reliable checks.
>
> It's what the patch does.
Hmmm, I thought it was bi
Hi Anze,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 01:48:12AM +0200, Anze wrote:
>
> > Indeed it never made it in. Each time I look at it, I realize that
> > cleaning it up and fixing it will take more time than what I have
> > available to work on it :-/
>
> I can understand that completely. :)
>
> Actually, I
> Indeed it never made it in. Each time I look at it, I realize that
> cleaning it up and fixing it will take more time than what I have
> available to work on it :-/
I can understand that completely. :)
Actually, I am not that much interested in the patch per-se, I would just like
to check the
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:37:48AM +0200, Anze wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have tried upgrading our haproxy version to 1.4.8 and found than this
> configuration setting fails:
> http-check expect string check_is_ok
> with message:
> 'http-check' only supports 'disable-on-404'
>
> I guess the pat
Hi all,
We have tried upgrading our haproxy version to 1.4.8 and found than this
configuration setting fails:
http-check expect string check_is_ok
with message:
'http-check' only supports 'disable-on-404'
I guess the patch never made it to stable (yet?). Are there any plans to add
it to the
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:48:42PM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Le Mercredi 17 Mars 2010 21:12:45, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> > (...) I don't
> > agree with restting the buffer or even considering we have an error
> > when a session does not close, because it is a regression. For instance,
> > all pe
Le Mercredi 17 Mars 2010 21:12:45, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> (...) I don't
> agree with restting the buffer or even considering we have an error
> when a session does not close, because it is a regression. For instance,
> all people using HTTP/1.1 checks will see a problem here.
hey right, I sudde
Hi Cyril,
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:56:31PM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le Mardi 16 Mars 2010 21:35:10, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> > I'm now gathering my changes and committing your patch with the small
> > fixes above. That way we can concentrate on ECV.
>
> I've played a little wit
Hi all,
Le Mardi 16 Mars 2010 21:35:10, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> I'm now gathering my changes and committing your patch with the small
> fixes above. That way we can concentrate on ECV.
I've played a little with this commits.
I added some traces to see what happens when a timeout occurs and noti
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 06:22:09PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> What I can propose you is to proceed in 3 phases :
>
> - I will try to extract the two features from your patch
> (response reassembly and ECV), and apply the first one
> to next 1.4.
OK, your code was clean and the two pa
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the update. I've quickly reviewed it and noticed
some of the issues of the initial ECV patch (though I don't
remember them all, I'll have to dig into my mailbox). I'm
putting a few examples below.
What I can propose you is to proceed in 3 phases :
- I will try to extract th
diff -ur haproxy-1.4.1/include/types/proxy.h haproxy-1.4.1-ecv-test/include/types/proxy.h
--- haproxy-1.4.1/include/types/proxy.h 2010-03-04 22:39:19.0 +
+++ haproxy-1.4.1-ecv-test/include/types/proxy.h 2010-03-15 10:15:40.0 +
@@ -137,6 +137,8 @@
#define PR_O2_MYSQL_CHK 0x0
Hello Willy.
On 8 March 2010 21:25, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 04:32:54PM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
>> Attached is a patch against v1.4.1. It contains the updated ECV patch,
>> and the hacks to work around check responses that span multiple
>> packets.
> At first glance, it see
Hi Nick,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 04:32:54PM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> Hello Willy.
>
> On 3 March 2010 20:31, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > OK that's perfect then. If you don't manage to sort out your issue
> > with small packets, do not hesitate to post your work in progress
> > to the list, it oft
Hello Willy.
On 3 March 2010 20:31, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> OK that's perfect then. If you don't manage to sort out your issue
> with small packets, do not hesitate to post your work in progress
> to the list, it often helps a lot to work iteratively.
The small-packet problem turned out to be a t
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:12:09PM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> Hello Willy.
>
> On 2 March 2010 21:45, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > If your quick ack already works for one single check, then simply
> > allocate a buffer for each server in cfgparse.c, and have the
> > checks functions use that server-s
Hello Willy.
On 2 March 2010 21:45, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> If your quick ack already works for one single check, then simply
> allocate a buffer for each server in cfgparse.c, and have the
> checks functions use that server-specific buffer instead of
> trash.
Thanks for the pointer. I've added b
Hi Nick,
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:25:06PM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> Hello Willy.
>
> On 25 February 2010 20:25, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:05:57AM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> >> On 13 February 2010 10:40, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> > Indeed, with MSG_PEEK we have no wa
Hello Willy.
On 25 February 2010 20:25, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:05:57AM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
>> On 13 February 2010 10:40, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> > Indeed, with MSG_PEEK we have no way to tell the connection was closed.
>>
>> For the time being, I've hacked togethe
Hi Nick,
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:05:57AM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> Hello Willy, Krzysztof.
>
> On 13 February 2010 10:40, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Ol??dzki wrote:
> >> There are several issues with the fix:
> >>
> >> - we need to check if
Hello Willy, Krzysztof.
On 13 February 2010 10:40, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Olędzki wrote:
>> There are several issues with the fix:
>>
>> - we need to check if connection is not closed, as it is pointless to
>> use MSG_PEEK and restarting such c
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Ol??dzki wrote:
> There are several issues with the fix:
>
> - we need to check if connection is not closed, as it is pointless to
> use MSG_PEEK and restarting such check if there is no more data we are
> able to read
Indeed, with MSG_PEEK w
On 2010-02-11 15:29, Nick Chalk wrote:
Hello Willy.
On 11 February 2010 05:21, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:56:14PM +, 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 is
Hello Willy.
On 11 February 2010 05:21, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:56:14PM +, 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
> poss
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:56:14PM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> Thanks Willy, Krzysztof.
>
> 2010/2/10 Willy Tarreau :
> > Did you managed to fix the several remaining issues which could cause
> > it to crash the process ?
>
> I believe so, following Cyril Bonté's suggestions last week. I'm still
>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:35:14PM +0100, Krzysztof Ol??dzki wrote:
> On 2010-02-10 23:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> >>We are seeing both real servers repeatedly going on- and off-line with
> >>a period of tens of seconds. Packet tracing, stracing, and adding
> >>debug code to HAProxy itself has re
Thanks Willy, Krzysztof.
2010/2/10 Willy Tarreau :
> Did you managed to fix the several remaining issues which could cause
> it to crash the process ?
I believe so, following Cyril Bonté's suggestions last week. I'm still
testing it, though.
2010/2/10 Krzysztof Olędzki :
> On 2010-02-10 23:02, W
On 2010-02-10 23:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
We are seeing both real servers repeatedly going on- and off-line with
a period of tens of seconds. Packet tracing, stracing, and adding
debug code to HAProxy itself has revealed that the real servers are
always responding correctly, but HAProxy is somet
Hi Nick,
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 04:10:46PM +, Nick Chalk wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I wonder if anyone can assist with this problem, reported by one of
> our customers.
>
> The load balancer is running HAProxy 1.4-rc1, with a modified version
> of the HTTP ECV patch applied. The customer is using
Hello.
I wonder if anyone can assist with this problem, reported by one of
our customers.
The load balancer is running HAProxy 1.4-rc1, with a modified version
of the HTTP ECV patch applied. The customer is using ECV to check the
status of a pair of IIS web servers:
listen web 10.3.4.150:80
31 matches
Mail list logo
