On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 04:20:22PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 03:09:20PM +, Luke Seelenbinder wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> > Yes! I can confirm the patch does indeed work--thanks for the quick
> > turnaround.
> > Best,
> > Luke
> Willy, can you push
From: Frédéric Lécaille
Here are new reg tests for peers.
They are supposed to test the SSL/TLS support for haproxy peer protocol.
Furthermore, vtest fixes are required:
From: Frédéric Lécaille
reg-tests/peers/common.pem | 1 +
reg-tests/peers/s_basic_sync.vtc | 115 ++
reg-tests/peers/s_tls_basic_sync.vtc | 118 +++
3 files changed, 234 insertions(+)
create mode 12
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 03:09:20PM +, Luke Seelenbinder wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> Yes! I can confirm the patch does indeed work—thanks for the quick turnaround.
Willy, can you push it ?
>From 585bcc7f8ec84573d070d2d9d1e0b104fd18eb48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
Yes! I can confirm the patch does indeed work—thanks for the quick turnaround.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 4:01 PM, Olivier Houchard
> Hi Luke,
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:35:38PM +, Luke Seelenbinder wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:35:38PM +, Luke Seelenbinder wrote:
> Hello all,
> First, I wanted to say a huge thanks to the team for a producing a quality
> piece of software. My company just moved all of our traffic over, and the
> performance and nimbleness of haproxy is
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 01:02:56PM +0100, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> > Very likely, yes. If you want to inspect the body you simply have to
> > enable "option http-buffer-request" so that haproxy waits for the body
> > before executing rules. From there, indeed you can pass whatever Lua
First, I wanted to say a huge thanks to the team for a producing a quality
piece of software. My company just moved all of our traffic over, and the
performance and nimbleness of haproxy is impressive. I'm testing 1.9.2 for
migration as soon as it's stable for our use-case.
Am 17.01.2019 um 04:25 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Hi Aleks,
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:52:12PM +0100, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>> For service routing are the standard haproxy content routing options possible
>> (path, header, ...) , right?
> Yes absolutely.
>> If someone want to
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:24:58AM +0300, Wert wrote:
>> Sometimes in multi-process configuration might appear error "Failed to get
>> the number of sockets to be transferred !" during reload.
>> Than new instance would silently fail like 50-80% of new connections.
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:32:00AM +0300, Wert wrote:
>> How to reproduce:
>> 1. Start browser-download (content-disposition: attachment) of some big file
>> through H2
>> * Tested with 1Gb file and several Chrome-versions (67-)
>> 2. Make reload
>> 3. Process with this connection
Le 16/01/2019 à 22:25, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 08:44:58PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
Hi Willy, Christopher,
Op 16-1-2019 om 17:32 schreef Willy Tarreau:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:28:56PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote:
here is a new patch, again. Willy, I hope
If we fail to initialize pollers due to fdtab/fdinfo/polled_mask
not getting allocated, we free any of those that were allocated
and exit. However the ordering was incorrect, and there was an old
unused and unreachable "fail_cache" path as well.
src/fd.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 2
Mail list logo