option http-server-close is sufficient and allow client side keep-alive. Moreover, to achive a good load balancing, server side keepalice NEEDS to be disabled (with http-server-close option) since mutiple connections inside one keep-alive session are not balanced...
Client side keep alive does not matters here. On Tuesday 12 April 2011 13:53:49 Brian Carpio wrote: > From the documentation > > It is important to note that as long as HAProxy does not support keep-alive > connections, only the first request of a connection will receive the header. > For this reason, it is important to ensure that "option httpclose" is set > when using this option. > > Examples : > # Public HTTP address also used by stunnel on the same machine > frontend www > mode http > option forwardfor except 127.0.0.1 # stunnel already adds the header > > # Those servers want the IP Address in X-Client > backend www > mode http > option forwardfor header X-Client > > See also : "option httpclose" > > > Brian Carpio > Senior Systems Engineer > > Office: +1.303.962.7242 > Mobile: +1.720.319.8617 > Email: bcar...@broadhop.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Vehent [mailto:jul...@linuxwall.info] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:55 PM > To: Haproxy > Subject: x-forwarded-for and server side keep alive > > Hi there, > > I browsed the list to look for an answer to this question, without success, > so I hope you can help me on this. > > I want to use Haproxy in front of Tomcat. I need to get the client's IP, so > I logically activated 'option forwardfor', which works fine. > > I also want server-side keepalive. And this is when I discovered that > Haproxy sends the x-forwarded-for header with the first request of the keep-alived connection only. > It seems that tomcat 6.0.32 (that we use) cannot remember the > x-forwarded-for value across multiple requests. So we would need to send the header with every request. > > My first question is: does anybody see anything wrong with those > assumptions ? > > Then: is there a way to have x-forwarded-for added to each request without > giving up on server-side keep alive ? > > > Thanks, > Julien > > > -- Guillaume Castagnino ca...@xwing.info / guilla...@castagnino.org
