Re: question about queue and max_conn = 1

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 10:02:03PM -0500, Greg Gard wrote: > thanks for taking a look willy. let me know if there's anything else i > should change. (...) > defaults (...) > # option httpclose This one above should not be commented out. Otherwise, client doing keepalive will artificially mai

Re: question about queue and max_conn = 1

thanks for taking a look willy. let me know if there's anything else i should change. global maxconn 4096 user haproxy group haproxy daemon log 127.0.0.1local0 notice # http defaults log global retries3 timeoutconnect 5000 timeoutclient 60

Re: load balancer and HA

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:14:44AM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> A less ambitious scheme would have the new proxy take over the client > >> connection and retry the request with the next available backend. > > > > Will not work because

Re: load balancer and HA

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> A less ambitious scheme would have the new proxy take over the client >> connection and retry the request with the next available backend. > > Will not work because the connection from the client to the proxy will > have been broken during t

Re: load balancer and HA

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:47:14PM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > When it comes to just move an IP address between two machines an do > > nothing else, the VRRP protocol is really better. It's what is > > implemented in keepalived. Simple,

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:36:59PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:00:38PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > >> Thanks Willy -- here's the sysctl -a |grep ^net output: > >> http://pastie.org/409735 > > > > after a qu

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 05:20:48PM -0500, John Lauro wrote: > > - net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max = 265535 > > - net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_time_wait = 120 > > => this proves that netfiler is indeed running on this machine > >and might be responsible for session drops. 26

Re: load balancer and HA

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > When it comes to just move an IP address between two machines an do > nothing else, the VRRP protocol is really better. It's what is > implemented in keepalived. Simple, efficient and very reliable. Actually, it seems that my information is o

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:00:38PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: >> Thanks Willy -- here's the sysctl -a |grep ^net output: >> http://pastie.org/409735 > > after a quick check, I see two major things : >  - net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 1024

RE: measuring haproxy performance impact

> - net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max = 265535 > - net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_tcp_timeout_time_wait = 120 > => this proves that netfiler is indeed running on this machine >and might be responsible for session drops. 265k sessions is >very low for the large time_wait. It limits

Re: Dropped HTTP Requests

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 04:55:21PM -0500, Timothy Olson wrote: > I'm using HAProxy 1.3.15.7 to load-balance three Tomcat instances, and to > fork requests for static content to a single Apache instance. I've found > that after the initial HTML page is loaded from Tomcat, the browser's > subsequent

Dropped HTTP Requests

I'm using HAProxy 1.3.15.7 to load-balance three Tomcat instances, and to fork requests for static content to a single Apache instance. I've found that after the initial HTML page is loaded from Tomcat, the browser's subsequent first request for a static image from Apache gets dropped (neither HAP

Re: question about queue and max_conn = 1

Hi Greg, On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:54:13PM -0500, Greg Gard wrote: > hi willy and all, > > wondering if i can expect haproxy to queue requests when max conn per > backend it set to 1. running nginx > haproxy > mongrel/rails2.2.2. yes, it works fine and is even the recommended way of setting it

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:00:38PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > Thanks Willy -- here's the sysctl -a |grep ^net output: > http://pastie.org/409735 after a quick check, I see two major things : - net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 1024 => far too low, increase it to 10240 and check if it helps

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:49:39AM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: >> Oops, looks like it's actually Gb -> Gb: >> http://pastie.org/409653 > > ah nice ! > >> Here's a netstat -s: >> http://pastie.org/409652 > > Oh there are interesting things t

question about queue and max_conn = 1

hi willy and all, wondering if i can expect haproxy to queue requests when max conn per backend it set to 1. running nginx > haproxy > mongrel/rails2.2.2. all seems ok, but i am getting a few users complaining of connection problems and never see anything other than zeros in the queue columns. th

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:49:39AM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > Oops, looks like it's actually Gb -> Gb: > http://pastie.org/409653 ah nice ! > Here's a netstat -s: > http://pastie.org/409652 Oh there are interesting things there : - 513607 failed connection attempts => let's assume it

question about queue with max conn set to 1

hi willy and all, wondering if i can expect haproxy to queue requests when max conn per backend it set to 1. running nginx > haproxy > mongrel/rails2.2.2. all seems ok, but i am getting a few users complaining of connection problems and never see anything other than zeros in the queue columns. th

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:23:02AM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:04:06PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > >> I'm trying to understand why our proxied requests have a much greater > >> chance of

RE: load balancer and HA

> I still don't understand why people stick to heartbeat for things > as simple as moving an IP address. Heartbeat is more of a clustering > solution, with abilities to perform complex tasks. > > When it comes to just move an IP address between two machines an do > nothing else, the VRRP protocol

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:04:06PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: >> I'm trying to understand why our proxied requests have a much greater >> chance of significant delay than non-proxied requests. >> >> The server is an 8-core (

Re: load balancer and HA

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:12:21AM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Martin Karbon wrote: > > just wanted to know if anyone knows an opensource solution for a so called > > transparent failover: what I mean with that is, I installed two machines > > with haproxy on

RE: "option httpchk" is reporting servers as down when they're not

Thanks, once I figure out logging I'll let you guys know what I discover :^) Thomas Allen Web Developer, ASCE 703.295.6355 -Original Message- From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w...@1wt.eu] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 1:39 PM To: Allen, Thomas Cc: Jeffrey 'jf' Lim; haproxy@formilux.org Subjec

Re: "option httpchk" is reporting servers as down when they're not

Hi Thomas, On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:45:20AM -0500, Allen, Thomas wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > The thing is that if I don't include the health check, the load balancer > works fine and each server receives equal distribution. I have no idea why > the servers would be reported as "down" but still work

Re: Frontend request errors

Hi Steve, On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:17:43PM +0800, Sun Yijiang wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been testing HAProxy for two days, it runs very well. However, I > noticed that during the last 4 hours, with total 520K sessions, the number > of frontend request errors (row "Frontend", column "Error

Re: mode health check failed

Hi Joseph, On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:16:30PM -0500, Joseph Hardeman wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just experienced again a check on the health of haproxy for one of our > clients which forced a failover to our backup haproxy system. I am > hoping someone has something to help with this. From l

Re: A bug in the snapshot?

Hi, On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:19:22PM +0800, FinalBSD wrote: > Hi there, >I'm not sure it's a bug in the snapshot(ss-20090207 and ss-20090223), but > I really cannot get the right reponse > when I use the "monitor-net" option like following: > --

Re: Multi-format about the Documentations

Hi, On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:07:08PM +0800, FinalBSD wrote: > Hi, > Yes Alexander, actually I wrote this by XML and compiled by DocBook > tools, > SGML here just means Docbook :), LaTeX is really the best for wrtting > tecnical > docs, but it's also complicated and need much to write. > > I

Re: measuring haproxy performance impact

Hi Michael, On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:04:06PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote: > I'm trying to understand why our proxied requests have a much greater > chance of significant delay than non-proxied requests. > > The server is an 8-core (dual quad) Intel machine. Making requests > directly to the ng