Hi Bar,
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:02:58PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Hey,
We're running haproxy 1.4.20 as our LB, nginx is listening on the same
machine on port 443 and terminating SSL, proxying the unencrypted requests
to haproxy on localhost:80.
I see many of these errors on the haproxy
Hi,
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 05:45:26PM +0200, Joeri Blokhuis | DongIT wrote:
On 05/11/2012 04:50 PM, Baptiste wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Joeri Blokhuis | DongIT
joeri.blokh...@dongit.nl wrote:
Hello guys,
I would like to benchmark and test the 'source' balance algorithm of
Hi,
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:32:33PM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Andres Thomas Stivalet
atstiva...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, if haproxy tries to start up and a webserver is down (and
it's defined as a hostname in the config file) haproxy refuses to
start.
Well, I must say I'm unsure what we'll do upon startup, because if we
accept to start with buggy host names, a number of admins will get
trapped with errors in their configs causing servers to remain down
forever. At least right now they know from the beginning that they
have to fix their
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:09:22AM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
Well, I must say I'm unsure what we'll do upon startup, because if we
accept to start with buggy host names, a number of admins will get
trapped with errors in their configs causing servers to remain down
forever. At least right now
Willy,
Thank you, I will follow up with your suggestions soon.
But I just had a production down-time with the haproxy machine:
After posting something to our Facebook wall (it happened twice, yesterday
and 3 days ago), which usually brings more traffic (but not more than we
can usually handle
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 01:23:17PM +0200, Baptiste wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Bar Ziony bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Willy,
Thank you, I will follow up with your suggestions soon.
But I just had a production down-time with the haproxy machine:
After posting something to our
Sometimes it would be resolvable and other times not, it depends if
the host has reported itself to the DNS server previously and it's
still in the bind cache after going down. I suspect that this is
happening if the host is down and there is no IP for it in the DNS
tables, but that's just guess
Hi Willy,
I believe in previous versions of haproxy having an unresolvable host
name at start up did not cause haproxy to error out. Bellow is the
change log I found:
2010/03/30 : 1.3.24
- [BUG] config: report unresolvable host names as errors
I wrongly assumed that haproxy performed DNS
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:25:58AM -0500, Andres Thomas Stivalet wrote:
Hi Willy,
I believe in previous versions of haproxy having an unresolvable host
name at start up did not cause haproxy to error out. Bellow is the
change log I found:
2010/03/30 : 1.3.24
- [BUG] config: report
I have no problem increasing the RAM if needed, but how do I know if it's
needed? Where can I see the number of connections per second to see if I
somehow reached 20k ? I don't think I reached 20k because the global
maxconn is 20K
This is my TCP tuning config for the LB:
# TCP stack tuning
Hey,
I have a dynamic backend with maxconn 80 with multiple servers.
Many times I can see on the haproxy stats page that servers on this backend
are reaching their maximum 80, but I don't see the number of requests
currently in queue. The maximum number I ever see is 80. Why is that? Can I
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 06:54:06PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
I have no problem increasing the RAM if needed, but how do I know if it's
needed? Where can I see the number of connections per second to see if I
somehow reached 20k ?
I have not said 20k conns/s, but 20k concurrent conns. Concurrency
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 07:01:19PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Hey,
I have a dynamic backend with maxconn 80 with multiple servers.
Many times I can see on the haproxy stats page that servers on this backend
are reaching their maximum 80, but I don't see the number of requests
currently in
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Bar Ziony bar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey,
I have a dynamic backend with maxconn 80 with multiple servers.
Many times I can see on the haproxy stats page that servers on this backend
are reaching their maximum 80, but I don't see the number of requests
currently
Willy, thanks for your answer.
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 07:01:19PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Hey,
I have a dynamic backend with maxconn 80 with multiple servers.
Many times I can see on the haproxy stats page that servers
Hi Willy,
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 06:54:06PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
I have no problem increasing the RAM if needed, but how do I know if it's
needed? Where can I see the number of connections per second to see if I
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 08:43:43PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
So session rate is the number of requests per second ? Why is it called
session then if it's really requests?
You have the two. Initially in haproxy, you had no keepalive, so
1 req = 1 session. Now you have the numbers in the session
Hi Willy :)
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 08:43:43PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
So session rate is the number of requests per second ? Why is it called
session then if it's really requests?
You have the two. Initially in haproxy,
Hi,
Le 12/05/2012 21:42, Bar Ziony a écrit :
OK, got why there are more frontend sessions than backend sessions. But
is it usual to see so much more?
In the configuration you provided, you didn't set any timeout
http-keep-alive. It means that on your frontend, your keep-alive
timeout is
Oh, thanks.
Small value = 10 sec for example? :| What is an optimal keepalive timeout?
Thanks,
Bar.
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Cyril Bonté cyril.bo...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
Le 12/05/2012 21:42, Bar Ziony a écrit :
OK, got why there are more frontend sessions than backend sessions. But
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 02:53:45PM -0500, Andres Thomas Stivalet wrote:
That's why I've added this to the TODO list :-)
Thanks Willy!
For the same reason, you cannot safely install firewalls nor VPNs in such
environments.
I'd just like to mention that it's certainly possible to
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:04:49PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Oh, thanks.
Small value = 10 sec for example? :| What is an optimal keepalive timeout?
I like to use just a few seconds so that all objects from the same page are
fetched at once and the connection automatically closes after this. But
Is there a benefit to allow a larger keepalive timeout so more than
resources from 1 page will be downloaded, or is it just best to create a
new connection for succeeding pages?
Willy, did you see my previous email in this correspondence? :)
Thanks,
Bar.
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Willy
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:42:24PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
How can I know the average response time of my servers? haproxy provides
that data somewhere?
Yes you have each response time value in your logs :-)
But can I get the average response time?
By doing an average of what appears
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:31:03PM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Is there a benefit to allow a larger keepalive timeout so more than
resources from 1 page will be downloaded, or is it just best to create a
new connection for succeeding pages?
It depends on your available memory. Ideally you'd keep
Given how the current farm toolset operates under the hostname assumption
we're still going to have change hostnames etc.
We're currently evaluating if we want to patch haproxy for our needs or
track our machines some other way.
Patching haproxy seems like the sane route. :)
On May 12, 2012 3:17
Thank you Willy!
I increased the RAM to 2GB and now I don't see the problem. I will change
the buffers size and report back as well.
Why did you recommend bufsize of 8130 and not 8192? Also, Why do I need to
change tune.maxrewrite ?
Thanks,
Bar.
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Willy Tarreau
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:50:39AM +0300, Bar Ziony wrote:
Thank you Willy!
I increased the RAM to 2GB and now I don't see the problem. I will change
the buffers size and report back as well.
Why did you recommend bufsize of 8130 and not 8192?
As I explained in an earlier mail in this
29 matches
Mail list logo
