Téléchargé gratuitement votre livre blanc ACT!
Porquoi est-il nécéssaire de gérez efficacement vos contacts? Dans un environnement économique incertain, il est primordial de se concentrer sur ce qui est le plus important pour la pérennité de son entreprise, à savoir son métier et ses clients. ACT! -- La solution de Gestion de Contacts, Clients et Prospects adaptée aux besoins de la petite entreprise. Efficace et simple d,installation ACT! offre de nombreuses possibilités en terme de : • FIDELISATION : vous améliorez la qualité de votre relation client en optimisant la connaissance et la gestion de ces derniers. • PROSPECTION : vous planifiez et réalisez des actions de prospections ciblées. • COMMUNICATION : vous gagnez du temps en partageant facilement toutes les informations client dans l'entreprise. • PRODUCTIVITE : vous analysez et organisez efficacement votre activité commerciale Plus d'informations: http://track.effiliation.com/servlet/effi.redir?id_compteur=11366157&url=http://www.monact.fr/formulaire_livreblanc_act Conformément à la loi informatique & libertés du 6 janvier 1978, je dispose d'un droit d'accès, de rectification et d'opposition aux données personnelles me concernant. Ce message commercial vous est envoyé par “Team Leaders”.. Vous recevez ce message parce que vous vous êtes inscrit sur l'un des sites partenaires de “Team Leaders”. Vos données nominatives n'ont pas été transmises à l'annonceur. Si vous ne souhaitez plus recevoir notre lettre d'information Remplissez ce formulaire: http://87.255.69.213/unsubscribe/index.php?q=hapr...@formilux.org
Re: x-forwarded-for logging
Hi Joe Yes, it is possible, but there's a little more work involved than just applying the patch to stunnel. Firstly, you need to specify in your stunnel.conf that you want stunnel to add the X-Forwarded-For header: [https] accept = 1.2.3.4:443 connect = 1.2.3.4:80 TIMEOUTclose = 0 xforwardedfor=yes Next you need to have the following in your haproxy config, it can go in defaults, frontend, listen or backend as appropriate for your setup: option forwardfor Finally, you need to configure your web server to use the X-Forwarded-For header. We're using Apache's mod_rpaf to do this (http://stderr.net/apache/rpaf/). Regards, Graeme. On 7 October 2010 00:31, Joe Williams wrote: > > I applied the x-forwarded-for patch to stunnel in hopes that haproxy would > log the forwarded for address but it doesn't seem to. Is this possible? > > Thanks. > -Joe > > > > Name: Joseph A. Williams > Email: j...@joetify.com > Blog: http://www.joeandmotorboat.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/williamsjoe > > >
Re: Interest in patch for web interface to enable/disable servers
Hi Judd, On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 12:10:02AM -0400, Judd Montgomery wrote: > On 10/06/2010 05:37 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:18:21PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote: > > > >I have no doubt people will want it, I was wondering if they'd possibly > >wait for 1.5 or want it in 1.4 in fact. > > > >>For our needs, we can wait for the 1.5 but I'm not against having it > >>directly > >>in 1.4, and I guess that Judd will likely appreciate to have it in 1.4 > >>too ;-) > > > >Yes, for sure. I'll let Judd decide then. Both of you have done a great > >work > >on this, it's the least I can do to let you have it in 1.4 if you think you > >need it. > > > Yes, I would like to have it in 1.4. I'd guess it would get accepted in > Debian and make its way down the distribution chains that way. I > appreciate Willy and Cyril's help with this. OK, so let's merge it too ! Thanks for your feedback, Willy
Re: Performance Question
What did the haproxy stats web page show during the test? How long was each test run? many people seem to run ab for a few seconds. Was tomcat "doing" anything for the test urls, I am a bit shocked you got 3700 rps from tomcat. Most apps I have seen on it fail at much lower rps. Raise the max conn for each server and for the front end and see if you get better results. On 10/6/10 7:11 PM, Les Stroud wrote: I did a little more digging and found several blogs that suggest that I will take a performance hit on virtual platforms. In fact, this guy (http://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg03119.html) seems to have the same problem. The part that is concerning me is not the overall performance, but that I am getting worse performance with 4 servers than I am with 1 server. I realize there are a lot of complications, but I have to be doing something very wrong to get a decrease. I have even tried putting haproxy on the same server with 2 tomcat servers and used 127.0.0.1 to take as much of the network out as possible. I still get a lower number of requests per second when going through haproxy to the 2 tomcats (as opposed to going directly to one of the tomcats). This test is using ab locally on the same machine. I have tried all of the sysctl settings that I have found listed on the board. Is there anything I am missing?? I appreciate the help, Les Stroud On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Les Stroud wrote: I’ve figured I would find answers to this in the archive, but have been unable to. So, I appreciate the time. I am setting up an haproxy instance in front of some tomcat instances. As a test, I ran ab against one of the tomcat instances directly with an increasing number of concurrent connections. I then repeated the same test with haproxy fronting 4 tomcat servers. I was hoping to see that the haproxy setup would perform a higher number of requests per second and hold that higher number with increasingly high traffic. Unfortunately, it did not. Hitting the tomcat servers directly, I was able to get in excess of 3700 rqs/s. With haproxy in front of that tomcat instance and three others (using roundrobin), I never surpassed 2500. I also did not find that I was able to handle an increased amount of concurrency (both started giving errors around 2). I have tuned the tcp params on the linux side per the suggestions I have seen on here. Are there any other places I can start to figure out what I have wrong in my configuration?? Thanx, LES ——— haproxy.cfg global #log loghost local0 info maxconn 500 nbproc 4 stats socket /tmp/haproxy.sock level admin defaults log global clitimeout 6 srvtimeout 3 contimeout 4000 retries 3 option redispatch option httpclose option abortonclose listen stats 192.168.60.158:8081 mode http stats uri /stat #Comment this if you need to specify diff stat path for viewing stat page stats enable listen erp_cluster_https 0.0.0.0:81 mode http balance roundrobin option forwardfor except 0.0.0.0 reqadd X-Forwarded-Proto:\ https cookie SERVERID insert indirect server tomcat01-instance1 192.168.60.156:8080 cookie A check server tomcat01-instance2 192.168.60.156:18080 cookie A check server tomcat02-instance1 192.168.60.157:8080 cookie A check server tomcat02-instance2 192.168.60.157:18080 cookie A check
Re: Interest in patch for web interface to enable/disable servers
On 10/06/2010 05:37 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:18:21PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote: I have no doubt people will want it, I was wondering if they'd possibly wait for 1.5 or want it in 1.4 in fact. For our needs, we can wait for the 1.5 but I'm not against having it directly in 1.4, and I guess that Judd will likely appreciate to have it in 1.4 too ;-) Yes, for sure. I'll let Judd decide then. Both of you have done a great work on this, it's the least I can do to let you have it in 1.4 if you think you need it. Yes, I would like to have it in 1.4. I'd guess it would get accepted in Debian and make its way down the distribution chains that way. I appreciate Willy and Cyril's help with this. Judd
Re: Performance Question
I did a little more digging and found several blogs that suggest that I will take a performance hit on virtual platforms. In fact, this guy (http://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg03119.html) seems to have the same problem. The part that is concerning me is not the overall performance, but that I am getting worse performance with 4 servers than I am with 1 server. I realize there are a lot of complications, but I have to be doing something very wrong to get a decrease. I have even tried putting haproxy on the same server with 2 tomcat servers and used 127.0.0.1 to take as much of the network out as possible. I still get a lower number of requests per second when going through haproxy to the 2 tomcats (as opposed to going directly to one of the tomcats). This test is using ab locally on the same machine. I have tried all of the sysctl settings that I have found listed on the board. Is there anything I am missing?? I appreciate the help, Les Stroud On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Les Stroud wrote: > I’ve figured I would find answers to this in the archive, but have been > unable to. So, I appreciate the time. > > I am setting up an haproxy instance in front of some tomcat instances. As a > test, I ran ab against one of the tomcat instances directly with an > increasing number of concurrent connections. I then repeated the same test > with haproxy fronting 4 tomcat servers. I was hoping to see that the haproxy > setup would perform a higher number of requests per second and hold that > higher number with increasingly high traffic. Unfortunately, it did not. > > Hitting the tomcat servers directly, I was able to get in excess of 3700 > rqs/s. With haproxy in front of that tomcat instance and three others (using > roundrobin), I never surpassed 2500. I also did not find that I was able to > handle an increased amount of concurrency (both started giving errors around > 2). > > I have tuned the tcp params on the linux side per the suggestions I have seen > on here. Are there any other places I can start to figure out what I have > wrong in my configuration?? > > Thanx, > LES > > > ——— > > haproxy.cfg > > global >#log loghostlocal0 info >maxconn 500 >nbproc 4 >stats socket/tmp/haproxy.sock level admin > defaults >log global >clitimeout 6 >srvtimeout 3 >contimeout 4000 >retries 3 >option redispatch >option httpclose >option abortonclose > > listen stats 192.168.60.158:8081 >modehttp >stats uri /stat #Comment this if you need to specify diff > stat path for viewing stat page >stats enable > listen erp_cluster_https 0.0.0.0:81 > mode http > balance roundrobin > option forwardfor except 0.0.0.0 > reqadd X-Forwarded-Proto:\ https > cookie SERVERID insert indirect > server tomcat01-instance1 192.168.60.156:8080 cookie A check > server tomcat01-instance2 192.168.60.156:18080 cookie A check > server tomcat02-instance1 192.168.60.157:8080 cookie A check > server tomcat02-instance2 192.168.60.157:18080 cookie A check
Re: Consistent hashing question
I'm pretty sure it's the id field on the server line. If you don't specify one, then one is assigned for you. For any installation using consistent hashing, it is good to set the id explicitly so as to have control of you hash buckets. On Oct 6, 2010 1:41 PM, "Dmitri Smirnov" wrote: Hi all, While doing consistent hashing I observed ( as expected) that the order of backend servers in the configuratio affects the distribution of the load. Being in the cloud, I am forced to regenerate the configuration file and restart because both the public host name and their addresses change most of the time as instances are replaced. To keep the distribution consistent I sort the list of servers by host name. However, I am not sure if this is exactly right thing to do. Question, what exactly is inserted into the consistent hashing tree: 1) name of the server that I specify 2) host name 3) resolved ten dot address. I am not looking at the source code now in hopes that the community will provide more insight faster, thank you, -- Dmitri Smirnov
Re: stunnel patch updates
Here's an updated listen queue depth patch for stunnel 4.32 -Joe On Oct 4, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Jim Riggs wrote: > On Oct 4, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Joe Williams wrote: > >> Anyone have updated patches for stunnel 4.34, specifically for the listen >> queue length and X-Forwarded-For? The patches on the haproxy site don't seem >> to work. > > > Attached is an updated version of the xforwardedfor patch that I use for > 4.32. I haven't tried it with 4.34 yet... > > stunnel-4.32-listen-queue.diff Description: Binary data Name: Joseph A. Williams Email: j...@joetify.com Blog: http://www.joeandmotorboat.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/williamsjoe
x-forwarded-for logging
I applied the x-forwarded-for patch to stunnel in hopes that haproxy would log the forwarded for address but it doesn't seem to. Is this possible? Thanks. -Joe Name: Joseph A. Williams Email: j...@joetify.com Blog: http://www.joeandmotorboat.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/williamsjoe
Re: Interest in patch for web interface to enable/disable servers
Hi Cyril, On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:18:21PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote: > Hi, > > Le mardi 5 octobre 2010 17:01:24, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > Hi guys, > > > > sorry for the delay, I missed that thread. I'm currently collecting > > missing patches for next 1.4. > > That gave me time to apply the patches on a 1.5 snapshot and test it in a > small production environment. It works well without any modifications. Thanks for the feedback, this will mean less worries for the porting work. (...) > > So I'd like to get your opinion on that. I'm not for adding features when > > people don't need them, but if there is demand, we can have them. > > I'm currently giving training sessions for my colleagues and from their > feedbacks, such a feature would be very appreciated, as it will let them > control the servers similarly to what they use to do with mod_proxy_balancer > and mod_jk. I have no doubt people will want it, I was wondering if they'd possibly wait for 1.5 or want it in 1.4 in fact. > For our needs, we can wait for the 1.5 but I'm not against having it directly > in 1.4, and I guess that Judd will likely appreciate to have it in 1.4 too ;-) Yes, for sure. I'll let Judd decide then. Both of you have done a great work on this, it's the least I can do to let you have it in 1.4 if you think you need it. > I just don't want to provide a patch that break things in the stable branch > :-) I know ;-) > Do you plan to release version 1.4.9 soon ? I ask that because I've not > started to write the documentation for "stats admin", then in the case it will > be merged in 1.4, I'll try to work on it this week-end. I've been spending some time these last days chasing the fixes from 1.4 to port them into 1.5 and conversely, in order to ensure that nothing gets lost. I spent about 2-3 days fixing and documenting the ECV patch that I've merged into 1.4 too, because I know that many people already patch their code with the buggy version and sometimes report issues. I've backported the cookie parser fixes from 1.5 (eg: support spaces around cookies). I still have some work to finish on the cookies (support for expirable persistence cookies) that some people have requested for 1.4 (even 1.3 in fact, we'll see). I'd like to hope that I can finish it by the week-end, but I can't be sure. However, the work on cookies is the last thing I have pending, so once that's done we can release fast. Maybe I'll emit an 1.4.9-rc1 first, in order to spot possible build issues that I have not detected. Cheers, Willy
Re: Interest in patch for web interface to enable/disable servers
Hi, Le mardi 5 octobre 2010 17:01:24, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > Hi guys, > > sorry for the delay, I missed that thread. I'm currently collecting > missing patches for next 1.4. That gave me time to apply the patches on a 1.5 snapshot and test it in a small production environment. It works well without any modifications. > At first glance, both of your patches look clean and separated enough from > the rest of the code to limit the risk of regression. So I'm not opposed to > merge it into 1.4. However, I'd say that if the current users of the patch > are currently migrating to 1.5, probably that we'd better put that into 1.5 > only. > > So I'd like to get your opinion on that. I'm not for adding features when > people don't need them, but if there is demand, we can have them. I'm currently giving training sessions for my colleagues and from their feedbacks, such a feature would be very appreciated, as it will let them control the servers similarly to what they use to do with mod_proxy_balancer and mod_jk. For our needs, we can wait for the 1.5 but I'm not against having it directly in 1.4, and I guess that Judd will likely appreciate to have it in 1.4 too ;-) I just don't want to provide a patch that break things in the stable branch :-) Do you plan to release version 1.4.9 soon ? I ask that because I've not started to write the documentation for "stats admin", then in the case it will be merged in 1.4, I'll try to work on it this week-end. -- Cyril Bonté
Consistent hashing question
Hi all, While doing consistent hashing I observed ( as expected) that the order of backend servers in the configuratio affects the distribution of the load. Being in the cloud, I am forced to regenerate the configuration file and restart because both the public host name and their addresses change most of the time as instances are replaced. To keep the distribution consistent I sort the list of servers by host name. However, I am not sure if this is exactly right thing to do. Question, what exactly is inserted into the consistent hashing tree: 1) name of the server that I specify 2) host name 3) resolved ten dot address. I am not looking at the source code now in hopes that the community will provide more insight faster, thank you, -- Dmitri Smirnov
Performance Question
I’ve figured I would find answers to this in the archive, but have been unable to. So, I appreciate the time. I am setting up an haproxy instance in front of some tomcat instances. As a test, I ran ab against one of the tomcat instances directly with an increasing number of concurrent connections. I then repeated the same test with haproxy fronting 4 tomcat servers. I was hoping to see that the haproxy setup would perform a higher number of requests per second and hold that higher number with increasingly high traffic. Unfortunately, it did not. Hitting the tomcat servers directly, I was able to get in excess of 3700 rqs/s. With haproxy in front of that tomcat instance and three others (using roundrobin), I never surpassed 2500. I also did not find that I was able to handle an increased amount of concurrency (both started giving errors around 2). I have tuned the tcp params on the linux side per the suggestions I have seen on here. Are there any other places I can start to figure out what I have wrong in my configuration?? Thanx, LES ——— haproxy.cfg global #log loghostlocal0 info maxconn 500 nbproc 4 stats socket/tmp/haproxy.sock level admin defaults log global clitimeout 6 srvtimeout 3 contimeout 4000 retries 3 option redispatch option httpclose option abortonclose listen stats 192.168.60.158:8081 modehttp stats uri /stat #Comment this if you need to specify diff stat path for viewing stat page stats enable listen erp_cluster_https 0.0.0.0:81 mode http balance roundrobin option forwardfor except 0.0.0.0 reqadd X-Forwarded-Proto:\ https cookie SERVERID insert indirect server tomcat01-instance1 192.168.60.156:8080 cookie A check server tomcat01-instance2 192.168.60.156:18080 cookie A check server tomcat02-instance1 192.168.60.157:8080 cookie A check server tomcat02-instance2 192.168.60.157:18080 cookie A check
¿ dynamic weights based on server l oad ?
hi, I have seen previous post in the mailing list about this topic but couldn´t find any docs about dynamic weights in latest haproxy releases. Would be great to be able to dinamically modify weight based on servers load. ¿is there any plan in the roadmap to implement this feature? I have also readed in the mailing list someone had implement a patch for haproxy 1.3.X to achieve this. ¿is this patch published? many thanks in advance for any help. pablo. -- Pablo Escobar Lopez Head of Infrastructure& IT Support Bioinformatics Department Centro de Investigación Príncipe Felipe (CIPF) http://bioinfo.cipf.es
