Hi, Willy Thanks for your help. We upgrade the version from 1.5.4 to 1.5.19, but still the same issue, and what's your recommended version we can use for production env?
$ haproxy -vv HA-Proxy version 1.5.19 2016/12/25 Copyright 2000-2016 Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> Build options : TARGET = linux26 CPU = generic CC = gcc CFLAGS = -m64 -march=x86-64 -O2 -g -fno-strict-aliasing OPTIONS = USE_ZLIB=1 USE_CPU_AFFINITY=1 USE_OPENSSL=1 USE_PCRE=1 Default settings : maxconn = 2000, bufsize = 16384, maxrewrite = 8192, maxpollevents = 200 Encrypted password support via crypt(3): yes Built with zlib version : 1.2.7 Running on zlib version : 1.2.7 Compression algorithms supported : identity, deflate, gzip Built with OpenSSL version : OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 Running on OpenSSL version : OpenSSL 1.0.1e-fips 11 Feb 2013 OpenSSL library supports TLS extensions : yes OpenSSL library supports SNI : yes OpenSSL library supports prefer-server-ciphers : yes Built with PCRE version : 8.32 2012-11-30 Running on PCRE version : 8.32 2012-11-30 PCRE library supports JIT : no (USE_PCRE_JIT not set) Built with transparent proxy support using: IP_TRANSPARENT IP_FREEBIND Available polling systems : epoll : pref=300, test result OK poll : pref=200, test result OK select : pref=150, test result OK Total: 3 (3 usable), will use epoll. On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:42PM +0800, jaseywang wrote: > > Our haproxy 1.5.4 MS cluster performs quite well before, and the peak > (...) > > Now, the weird thing is why haproxy has so many closewait connections? > and > > why the backlog queue soon becomes full? Usually so many closewait means > > haproxy can't correctly close the connection. > > The first explanation I'm seeing is here : > > http://www.haproxy.org/bugs/bugs-1.5.4.html > > Your version is totally outdated, contains at least 183 well known bugs > which have since been fixed in the same branch, out of which 18 are > considered as MAJOR (ie severe impact) and 88 medium (ie: severe impact > but with possible workaround). Is there a reason you never found the time > to keep it up to date during the last 2.5 years ? > > We maintain stable branches exactly so that users never face such issues > without being forced to upgrade to a new branch, despite this it seems > that once in a while some people get trapped, it's really sad :-( > > Willy >
