Hi Willy.

Am 03-04-2015 13:24, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Hi Aleks,

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 03:39:27PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
(...)
I think it would be worth to check how much time costs to switch from
c to lua and back.

I already tried. On my laptop I was seeing 55k conn/s on a simple test
which was building a redirect from a sample fetch declared in Lua which
was concatenating 3 other fetch results and calling crc32 on them. I
did it just for fun and was pleased to see that the overhead is very
low.

Thanks for sharing the information.

(...)
But as every time then comes the Users and say haproxy is slow because
there LUA-Script is full of flaws ;-/

This is inevitable. Several years ago, I've seen people saturate an F5-8800
with just a few hundreds of requests per second while this device was
supposed to be capable of hundreds of thousands, just because they
completely filled the machine with thousands of iRules. I was disgusted
just by thinking about it... ordering a machine designed for high traffic,
involving hardware accelerators for L4/SSL, just to immediately set a
bottleneck using a massive amount of L7 rules is absurd. I would have
liked to exchange it for a PC running haproxy to resell it later and
get rich, but they preferred to upgrade it. Some people like to use the
wrong tool for a given job, just because it's possible. So we'll see it
as well with haproxy/lua (and we'll be able to point them to this thread).

Full ack.

BTW the absolute record I've seen in a real configuration for haproxy
was 450000 named ACLs and their respective use_backend rules to implement
geolocation by hand! It did not run very fast to be honest, just enough
for a medium site :-)

I was glad that I sat when I read this. *WOW*

Good work Willy and contributors ;-)

Cheers
Aleks

Reply via email to