"The only thing I'm seeing that is wrong in your config is that you shouldremove the "option httpclose" statement in the defaults section and in the backend section,"
hi willy, i am trying to understand why "option httpclose" would be a problem? is it because haproxy has to do more work on both the ends to add the connection:close to the header? i have it set in my environments for a while now... should i be using "option foreclose" instead.. ________________________________ From: Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> To: Saul Waizer <saulwai...@gmail.com> Cc: HAproxy Mailing Lists <haproxy@formilux.org> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:16 AM Subject: Re: major performance decrease in total throughput with HAproxy 1.4.20 Hi Saul, On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:43:57PM -0400, Saul Waizer wrote: > Hey list, > > I am having a strange issue with my latest implementation of HAproxy. I > have 2 openAM servers (tomcat) behind my haproxy box running version 1.4.20 > on Ubuntu 10 X_86, all properly configured to be behind a load balancer. I > used Jmeter to test the openAM servers individually and both give > consistent results of ~1600-1800 req/sec, however, when I run the same > exact test through the HAproxy I can barely get 100 req/sec! This setup in > theory should allow me to double my throughput. Wow, 100 req/s is pretty low. Is this load stable or does it vary a lot during the test ? Do you have conntrack loaded on the LB ? Is the LB a real or virtual machine ? Are you observing a high CPU or network usage anywhere in the chain ? If you remove one of your servers, does the throughput remain the same or does it drop by half ? The only thing I'm seeing that is wrong in your config is that you should remove the "option httpclose" statement in the defaults section and in the backend section, but I'm pretty sure that at such a low load, it won't make any difference. Regards, Willy
