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 when
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
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:12:21AM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Martin Karbon martin.kar...@asbz.it 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
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
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 is
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:23:02AM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
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 was
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
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
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 for
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
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
- 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 to
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:36:59PM -0800, Michael Fortson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 11:47:14PM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:14:44AM +0100, Alexander Staubo wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu 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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
