Hi, I will continue testing in a few days and see how the result will turn out to be. We have made a lot of changes so we'll see how it goes.
All of the results include the details of the response time from the loadtest. Any recommendations on the logging we can use to get more information on what is happening on the server side? We are currently just using syslog. /E -----Original Message----- From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 14 oktober 2011 23:16 To: Erik Torlen Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Keep alive with haproxy & stud Hi Erik, On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 06:40:49PM +0000, Erik Torlen wrote: > Hi, > > I see different results on the keep alive using http vs https. > > Loadtest against https (through stud) gives me around 69% keep alive effiency > (using 3-20 objects per connection in different tests). When testing > through http directly against haproxy I get 99% keep alive with the same > loadtest scripts. > > I have tried changing timeouts and different modes (http-pretend-keepalive > etc) but still no improvement. > > Anyone that knows how to improve this and why it's happening? If you're trying directly then via stud and see different things, then none of the haproxy options (pretend-keepalive, ...) will have any effect. It is very possible that timeouts were too low but that would mean you were using insanely low timeouts (eg: a few ms). It is also possible that the tool you used for the test can't run as many https concurrent connections as it runs http connections, and that it closes some of them by itself. And it is also possible that there are a few issues with stud. While it performs well, it's still young and it is possible that some pathological corner cases remain. Haproxy experienced this in its early age too. You need to enable logging everywhere and get more precise stats from your load testing tool (eg: all response times, not just an average). Regards, Willy
