Yeah I was taking a look through the stats after the question Olivier asked and it doesn't seem like haproxy is actually going anywhere near enough sessions to produce 100% cpu... It's in userspace running as nobody and does still seem to respond, it's just odd. https://www.dropbox.com/s/i95ucdj8am18ut1/haproxy%20stats.tiff
I don't seem to be approaching any sort of threshold. The specific options were set because of the peculiar nature of the traffic I need to balance. We basically have connections that live for hours or more, with many very fast requests. There are some questions about whether we need abortonclose or why we disabled forceclose. Could they be not what we need here? On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Lukas Tribus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Hey, > > I had asked earlier about fixing problems with 504 errors by increasing > > timeouts, which helped a great deal. The problem is CPU usage is up to > > as high as 100% very frequently, which is worrying me. > > Haproxy (userspace) or system (kernel)? Does haproxy stop responding to > requests or is it still forwarding traffic? > > There are some important fixes in 1.4.25, I would suggest an upgrade > although there is no guarantee that it will fix the problem. > > > > > timeout connect 120ms > > The suggestion is to configure slightly more than 3 seconds for this. > > > > > option abortonclose > > no option forceclose > > option http-no-delay > > option nolinger > > Do you really need those? This are some very specific parameters that > are usually not required. > > What I would like to say is: there is a reason they are not configured > this way by default, are you fully aware of the consequences of those > parameters? > > If one of the parameters triggers somehow a bug, it needs to be fixed, > but a sub-optimal configuration can easily lead to increased load. > > > > Regards, > > Lukas > > >
