сб, 21 мар. 2020 г. в 14:00, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: > Hi Ilya, > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 01:44:40AM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I played with "special purpose" job, which runs h2spec > > > > here's code: > > > > > https://github.com/chipitsine/haproxy/commit/8c90ea82fd32c0ca9bd3df0ae7d9361525eda590 > > > > output: > > > > https://github.com/chipitsine/haproxy/runs/522959386 > > > > > > I think such jobs might be run on schedule, for example weekly ? > > I'm hesitating. While h2spec is a fantastic tool to detect some breakage, > it also relies on extremely precise behaviors and timing. Typically I > never managed to get it to work reproducibly by sending less than 8kB or > so of response data. This is related to the fact that it will for example > send an RST_STREAM after a request and will check if some data flow back, > which will essentially depend on the bytes in flight (hence bandwidth times > latency) between h2spec, haproxy and the server. That's typically what > makes > the success rate vary from 141 to 146 tests for me. >
how do you call h2spec ? in my case, I'm getting 95/95 tests. of course we do not have to run all tests. we can run just specific > > Now that we have the return directive we could imagine creating a second > layer and returning a large response there. But as you see I'm slightly > worried of having to deal with even more false positives while we haven't > still completely addressed the abns+reload randomness :-/ > > What's others' opinion on this ? > > Thanks, > Willy >