Hi all, I ended up switching service providers, as I'd had continued memory issues and problems with the stability of the server I was using. I'm not on a new VPS, from a different provider, running a different OS (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS). I'm still compiling from the latest in the git repository, and will report back if I experience any crashes at all. So far so good.
Sorry I couldn't provide more useful debugging information from my previous server, but I didn't experience any crash after I'd recompiled with the debugging flags and with the target as linux26 (though it had only been running a day or so before the switch, so not enough time to say with any certainty the problem had been resolved, it probably hadn't). Now I'm running a 3.10.x kernel and built haproxy with target=linux2628 ... and still with the debug flags. So, if I get anther crash I will run haproxy inside gdb until it crashes again. Cheers Nick On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:35:49PM +0200, Nick Jennings wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Amyas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nick Jennings <nick@...> writes: > > > > > > > I'm running CentOS 6 with a 2.6.18 kernel, aside from a few > > > > additional packages via the EPEL, there > > > > are no significant modifications. > > > > # uname -aLinux 2.6.18-308.8.2.el5.028stab101.1 #1 SMP > > > > > > That might be one problem, you have TARGET=linux2628 > > > but are using an older kernel than 2.6.28, it should be > > > > > > And on a classic Linux with SSL and ZLIB support (eg: Red Hat 5.x) : > > > $ make TARGET=linux26 CPU=native USE_PCRE=1 USE_OPENSSL=1 USE_ZLIB=1 > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't even notice the difference. I've > > recompiled and running the newly built HAproxy/ > > This is true, though this must not cause a crash. The difference between > linux26 and linux2628 are : > USE_LINUX_SPLICE= implicit > USE_LINUX_TPROXY= implicit > USE_ACCEPT4 = implicit > USE_CPU_AFFINITY= implicit > ASSUME_SPLICE_WORKS= implicit > > So in short nothing critical. All of these features have a fallback to > their older equivalent (eg: splice disables itself if it fails, accept4() > falls back to accept(), etc...). So I'm quite certain you're hitting a > real bug. > > If you can't manage to get a core, for whatever reason, you can run with > gdb instead : > > # gdb --args ./haproxy -db -f haproxy.cfg ... > > run > .... > crash > > generate-core-file > > quit > > It only requires that you have a window with this. I suspect you can do > this as well using a gdb script though I have never tried. > > Regards, > Willy > >
