On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 12:49:59PM +, William Lewis wrote:
I couldn't agree more, but I'm really in need of more concrete reasons for
pushing back against this.
It is very possible that nginx could do the job right for you. That said,
the feedback we get from people who love haproxy for
On 1 February 2013 21:57, Dusty Doris du...@doris.name wrote:
oom-killer just killed my haproxy instance. Anyone know if there is a way
to prioritize haproxy and have it get killed after something else? Or, any
tuning that might help.
On 1 February 2013 23:32, Robert Snyder r...@psu.edu wrote:
[snip]
I know it cannot be the most efficient thing, but it would allow us to have
custom redirection that can be maintained by the owners of the backend
pages.
I've implemented something vaguely similar in nginx, and it was a
pain.
Hello list,
I am working on routing an upload module that my application uses to a new
backend, it seems simple enough but I would like to get some feedback.
The application uri looks like this:
My.app.com/upload?id=123morestuff=haproxy+is+awesome
This is the config I have in mind:
acl
Notice that having the HAproxy box swapping is a huge performance killer and
you absolutely do not want to do that, so apart from tuning/configuring the OOM
killer you should track the issue down and avoid memory depletion and swapping
in first place.
Hi,
If your URL is /upload?param=value, then I would use the acl 'path'
directly. It would be more accurate.
path_beg would match anything starting by /upload.
Well, it depends on your upcoming needs.
cheers
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Saul Waizer saulwai...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
Hi,
My guess is that you have configured too huge buffers in HAProxy on in
your TCP sysctls.
There is no reason for HAProxy to use all the available memory, unless
you're running a 1.5-dev with a memory leak (dev15 had some kind of
leak, at least I've already seen it being oomed).
Could you
Hi All,
What is the best way to configure haproxy to hash based on an application
cookie (such as PHPSESSID), in a way that is consistent (meaning multiple
haproxy servers will route to the same backend), ideally including the
ability to weight backends (the configuration would clearly have to be
Lukas from what I see it looks like swap was not being utilized. It was
available but not used.
On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Lukas Tribus wrote:
Notice that having the HAproxy box swapping is a huge performance killer
and you absolutely do not want to do that, so apart from
1.4.2
I agree. I don't understand how haproxy was utilizing all the ram. I'm
not actually certain it was.
Could you elaborate on the sysctls comment?
On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Baptiste wrote:
Hi,
My guess is that you have configured too huge buffers in HAProxy on in
your TCP
Do you mean 1.4.2 or 1.4.22 ???
I have in mind a few sysctls like tcp_mem, tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem.
Some admins think it will improve things if they setup huge numbers...
Resulting in memory over usage when HAProxy box has to manage many
conn/s.
Baptiste
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Dusty
11 matches
Mail list logo
