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
>

Reply via email to