[PATCH 3/3] DOC: Document new socket commands "show tls-keys" and "set ssl tls-key"

Signed-off-by: Nenad Merdanovic --- doc/configuration.txt | 12 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/configuration.txt b/doc/configuration.txt index 85d94d9..4ecde15 100644 --- a/doc/configuration.txt +++ b/doc/configuration.txt @@ -14678,6 +14678,13 @@ set ssl ocsp-res

[PATCH 2/3] MEDIUM: Add support for updating TLS ticket keys via socket

Until now, HAproxy needed to be restarted to change the TLS ticket keys. With this patch, the TLS keys can be updated on a per-file basis using the admin socket. Two new socket commands have been introduced: "show tls-keys" and "set ssl tls-keys". Signed-off-by: Nenad Merdanovic --- include/prot

[PATCH 1/3] MINOR: Add TLS ticket keys reference and use it in the listener struct

Within the listener struct we need to use a reference to the TLS ticket keys which binds the actual keys with the filename. This will make it possible to update the keys through the socket Signed-off-by: Nenad Merdanovic --- include/types/listener.h | 3 +-- include/types/ssl_sock.h | 8 ++

[PATCH 0/3] Add support for TLS ticket key socket updates

This patchset adds support for updating TLS ticket keys using the admin socket. Nenad Merdanovic (3): MINOR: Add TLS ticket keys reference and use it in the listener struct MEDIUM: Add support for updating TLS ticket keys via socket DOC: Document new socket commands "show tls-keys" and "set

Re: Question on distribution not according to backend weight

Hi Babtiste, thanks a lot for your explanations! This totally makes sense, especially from a HA and throughput perspective. My use case is different and I'll try to explain how: * 30 servers are generating emails * 36 mail servers for sending out * relatively cheap h/w: 2 bonded 1Gbit interfaces,

Re: Is FTP through haproxy at all viable?

On 5/8/2015 8:39 AM, Ben Timby wrote: > With some iptables rules you can use FTP active and passive mode via > haproxy. > > The key is to assign unique passive port ranges to each backend then > port forward those ranges. You must be able to configure each FTP server > daemon with it's own range.

Re: Question on rewriting query string

Wow, very nice, regular expressions sure are powerful :-) Here is what I ended up with: defaults mode http timeout connect 1s timeout client 1s timeout server 1s listen HTTP-in bind 127.0.0.1:80 reqrep .*(sid=[a-z0-9A-Z]*)&(sid_guid=[^&]*)&.*(strid=[0-9a-zA-Z]*) \1&\2&\3&shopurl=search.as

Re: Is FTP through haproxy at all viable?

With some iptables rules you can use FTP active and passive mode via haproxy. The key is to assign unique passive port ranges to each backend then port forward those ranges. You must be able to configure each FTP server daemon with it's own range. You must also be able to configure your FTP daemo

Re: Is FTP through haproxy at all viable?

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > I have a load balancer setup with both haproxy and LVS-NAT. The LVS-NAT > is giving us high availability for FTP. > > When I tried migrating everything from CentOS 5, where it all works, to > Ubuntu 14 (for the newer kernel and because I find

Is FTP through haproxy at all viable?

I have a load balancer setup with both haproxy and LVS-NAT. The LVS-NAT is giving us high availability for FTP. When I tried migrating everything from CentOS 5, where it all works, to Ubuntu 14 (for the newer kernel and because I find debian-based systems far easier to use), everything worked exc

Re: Question on distribution not according to backend weight

Hi Frank, My problem: The weight setting for a backend seems to be ignored when the > max concurrent session setting is reached. I was expecting the connection > to get queued for this backend but it seems to flip over to the host that > has connections available. > This is expected. The queue m

Re: Question on distribution not according to backend weight

> On 8 мая 2015 г., at 4:54, Frank Schubert wrote: > > Hi, > > first of all let me thank you for an amazing piece of software. I like > working with haproxy a lot! > > My problem: The weight setting for a backend seems to be ignored when the max > concurrent session setting is reached. I was