Of course! I knew it had to be something like this. Thanks, working great now.
On 02/03/2012 11:59 AM, Cyril Bonté wrote: > Hi Lyle, > > Le 03/02/2012 20:37, Lyle Underwood a écrit : >> Hello list, >> >> I've been using haproxy for simple routing in front of two unicorn >> servers for a while now, including reqrep, and it's worked just fine >> on multiple boxes. Recently I tried to setup a third backend which >> pointed at an apache stack. It works sort of, the only problem is that >> reqrep only seems to work on that backend for some small percentage of >> the requests. It feels random. I think it's possible it could have >> some relation to the browser cache, but it's really difficult to hone >> in on. I've confirmed by watching the apache logs that some requests >> are being rewritten and some are not. >> >> https://gist.github.com/ea2dd27507e5e3ec3318 > > By default, haproxy works in tunnel mode, which means that only the > first request of a connection is parsed, anything after the first > request headers is considered as data. > When HTTP Keep-Alive is used between the client to the server, you'll > have several requests in the same connection, which will be interpreted > as data only (then not parsed nor modified by reqrep and others). > > For your needs, you have to change that mode by using "option httpclose" > (prevents HTTP Keep-Alive) or "option http-server-close". > The latter is oftenly better : you still have HTTP Keep-Alive enabled > between the client and haproxy, and haproxy will parse every requests of > the same connections. > > Important thing, don't forget to add a http-keep-alive timeout when > using option http-server-close. > >> marketing-files-backend is the one in question. >> >> So my questions are: >> >> 1. Does anybody have any experience with this problem? >> >> 2. Does reqrep apply to the entire request? Does it stop at the first >> match? >> >> 3. My haproxy logfile seems to have a significant delay. Is this normal? > > Using one of those 2 options will solve each question ;-) > >> >> Thanks for your time, >> Lyle >
