On 09/12/2016 08:54 πμ, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote: > Hi Willy, Elias, > > On 08:33 Fri 09 Dec , Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote: >>> # Should I use core 0 on each CPU for backends (proc 1+15) or should >>> I >>> use core 1(proc 2+16)? >> >> Backends are processed on the same CPU as the frontend which passes them >> the traffic, so the bind-process has no effect there. In fact bind-process >> on a backend means "at least on these processes". >> >> That's why it's better to proceed like this (stupid numbers, just so that >> you get the idea): >> >> listen ssl-offload >> bind-proess 2-50 >> bind :443 ssl .... process 2 >> ... >> bind :443 ssl .... process 50 > > I wonder if a `per-process' keyword would make sense here. I find > > bind :443 ssl .... per-process > > more concise than 15 or 20 individual bind lines. This would have the > same effect as N bind lines, one for each process in the bind-process > list.
If you have bind per process then all sockets are bound separately and you get X listening sockets on port 443, which results to have one distinct socket in each process with its own queue(SYN backlog queues and etc), and the kernel's load balancing works much better. So, haproxy performs better! Cheers, Pavlos
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
