Hi David, On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:01:44PM -0700, David Birdsong wrote: > Ok, false alarm. > > We have corruption in our log parsing stream so that's what the rest of my > week will be centered around.
OK, "cool" (for the rest of us). I was suspecting that the captures were initialized too late and were showing data from previous sessions (which could have been possible). However there's something that worries me in what you're writing : > >> > For the time > >> > being, we're stuck at 1.5.5 since 1.5.6 changes hashes for path-based > >> > hashing. We're working on re-arranging our infra to not take such a hit > > >> were > >> > our working set request hashing to be redrawn which will happen with >= > >> > 1.5.6. What's the problem exactly ? Is it related to this patch ? commit ac0329261bc9f4001e9d313ee879d193c05ca56e Author: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> Date: Fri Oct 17 12:11:50 2014 +0200 BUG/MEDIUM: backend: fix URI hash when a query string is present Commit 98634f0 ("MEDIUM: backend: Enhance hash-type directive with an algorithm options") cleaned up the hashing code by using a centralized function. A bug appeared in get_server_uh() which is the URI hashing function. Prior to the patch, the function would stop hashing on the question mark, or on the trailing slash of a maximum directory count. Consecutive to the patch, this last character is included into the hash computation. This means that : GET /0 GET /0? Are not hashed similarly. The following configuration reproduces it : mode http balance uri server s1 0.0.0.0:1234 redir /s1 server s2 0.0.0.0:1234 redir /s2 Many thanks to Vedran Furac for reporting this issue. The fix must be backported to 1.5. (cherry picked from commit fad4ffc89337277f3d5ed32b66986730e891558a) If so, is there anything that could be done in haproxy to work around your issue. I mean, we're talking a great care of not introducing regressions in the stable branch, which is why I don't want to see any feature backports there anymore (I learned my lesson with 1.4). So if we can do anything so that 1.5.12 is a safe upgrade for you, please suggest. Regards, Willy
