Thank you guys :) Yes, both servers are up, according with HAProxy :)
I guess it is an issue related with the hash. I will continue analysing based on your comments. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Baptiste <bed...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Bryan Talbot <bryan.tal...@playnext.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Luis Silva <luisfilsi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> I'm trying to use HAProxy to load balance based on the source address. > >> > >> backend bk_ws > >> balance source > >> > >> option httpchk GET / > >> server wsc1 10.174.82.15:8001 maxconn 30000 weight 10 check port 8001 > >> inter 60s fall 1 > >> server wsc2 10.174.82.16:8051 maxconn 30000 weight 10 check port 8051 > >> inter 60s fall 1 > >> > >> I'm sending the request from 3 different sources, but all of them are > >> being sent to the first server. Both servers are up. > >> > >> > > > > > > My guess is that you're just getting unlucky. Since your sample size is > so > > small, it's quite possible that all 3 source addresses end up hashed to > the > > same server. At most, you could expect up to 1 of the 3 source IPs to be > on > > server "one" and the other 2 on server "two". The hashes are not fair > when > > the input cardinality is so small. > > > > -Bryan > > > > I agree with Bryan, if the IPs are very close, the hash may not be very > good. > You could give a try to other hash algorithm available in HAProxy and > also playing with server's weight. Since the weight is used when > computing the hash, then there is a chance you balance your traffic > better (this is for your test phase only). > Also, you could add the same servers multiple times to create a farm > with 10 servers and retry your test with your few IP addresses. > > Stupid question... > Are you sure your server2 is up and running from an HAProxy point of view? > > Baptiste >
