Re: BUG/MINOR: dns: false positive downgrade of accepted_payload_size

Hello Baptiste, On 21 February 2018 at 19:59, Lukas Tribus wrote: > Baptiste, I don't think you'd find the symptoms I have in mind > acceptable on a load-balancer, so there has to be a misunderstanding > here. I would like to do some tests, maybe I can come up with a simple >

Re: BUG/MINOR: dns: false positive downgrade of accepted_payload_size

Hello Baptiste, I'm sorry if my comments are blunt, but I think this discussion is important and I do not want my messages to be ambiguous. I do appreciate all the work you are doing in the DNS subsystem. On 21 February 2018 at 18:05, Baptiste wrote: >> However in Haproxy

Re: BUG/MINOR: dns: false positive downgrade of accepted_payload_size

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Lukas Tribus wrote: > Hello Baptiste, > > > On 21 February 2018 at 08:45, Baptiste wrote: > >> Is this downgrade at good thing in the first place? Doesn't it hide > >> configuration and network issues, make troubleshooting more

Re: Haproxy 1.8.4 400's with http/2

Hello Sander, make sure you use "option http-keep-alive" as http mode, specifically httpclose will cause issue with H2. If that's not it, please share the configuration; also you may want to try enabling proxy_ignore_client_abort in the nginx backend [1]. cheers, lukas [1]

Haproxy 1.8.4 400's with http/2

Hi All, Today I tried enabling http/2 on haproxy 1.8.4. After enabling all requests to a certain backend started to give 400's while requests to other backend worked as expected. I get the following in haproxy.log: Feb 21 14:31:35 localhost haproxy[22867]:

Re: haproxy-1.8 build failure on FreeBSD/i386 (clang)

Well, Haproxy uses directly a handmade Makefile and it might be possible to write a short c code test to detect such features (just thinking aloud). On 21 February 2018 at 14:15, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > > On 21 Feb 2018, at 16:33, David CARLIER

Re: haproxy-1.8 build failure on FreeBSD/i386 (clang)

> On 21 Feb 2018, at 16:33, David CARLIER wrote: > > Might be irrelevant idea, but is it not possible to detect it via simple code > test into the Makefile eventually ? Did you mean configure? :)

Re: haproxy-1.8 build failure on FreeBSD/i386 (clang)

Might be irrelevant idea, but is it not possible to detect it via simple code test into the Makefile eventually ?

Re: Fwd: Plans for 1.9

Here a Work in Progress diff, here I simply build both static and shared libraries, maybe Haproxy folks would prefer only one of those but wanted to give the choice. the main entry point from haproxy.c then becomes hap_main one which is the default but in a fuzzer's perspective, it might be

Re: What is the difference between session and request?

Hi, On 20/02/2018 02:12, flamese...@yahoo.co.jp wrote: > Hi all > > I found that there are fe_conn, fe_req_rate, fe_sess_rate, be_conn and > be_sess_rate, but there is no be_req_rate. > > I understand that there might be multiple requests in one connection, > what is a session here? Googling

Re: BUG/MINOR: dns: false positive downgrade of accepted_payload_size

Hello Baptiste, On 21 February 2018 at 08:45, Baptiste wrote: >> Is this downgrade at good thing in the first place? Doesn't it hide >> configuration and network issues, make troubleshooting more complex >> and the haproxy behavior less predictable? > > > It is an rfc

Issue when connecting to backend server

Hello everyone, I'm writing to the list to talk about an issue I cannot solve. I would like to use HAproxy on AWS, and now I'm facing to an issue. The setup is basic, on frontend (with HTTP and HTTPS binding), and a backend with a single backend server. Frequently, the time to connect to the