Hi Simon,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:32:28PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> Hi Pieter, Hi Willy,
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:11:34PM +0100, P.Baauw wrote:
> > Hi Willy, Simon,
> >
> > Op 16-2-2016 om 21:56 schreef Willy Tarreau:
> > >Simon,
> > >
> > >are you OK with this series from Pieter ?
So lets say that I don't want HAProxy to close the connections to my
backend servers - they can stay active and be available for keepalives -
but I do want every request from the frontend to go to a different backend
via round robin. The idea being that it keeps one frontend connection from
Hi Pieter, Hi Willy,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:11:34PM +0100, P.Baauw wrote:
> Hi Willy, Simon,
>
> Op 16-2-2016 om 21:56 schreef Willy Tarreau:
> >Simon,
> >
> >are you OK with this series from Pieter ?
Yes, they look good to me.
Thanks Pieter for the fixes/enhancements.
Acked-by: Simon
こんにちは！最近、利用者の個人情報が一部のネットショップサーバーに不正取得され、利用者の個人情報漏洩事件が起こりました。お客様のアカウントの安全性を保つために、「りそな銀行システム」がアップグレードされましたが、お客様はアカウントが凍結されないように直ちにご登録のうえご確認ください。
以下のページより登録を続けてください。
https://mp.resona-gr.co.jp/mypage/MPMB010X010M.mp?BK=0010
Copyright (c) Resona Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hi Willy, Simon,
Op 16-2-2016 om 21:56 schreef Willy Tarreau:
Simon,
are you OK with this series from Pieter ?
Should we backport them to 1.6 ? They look like fixes but I'm uncertain.
Patches 1 and 4 i think should be backported to 1.6.
1- allows the tcp connection to send multiple syn
Simon,
are you OK with this series from Pieter ?
Should we backport them to 1.6 ? They look like fixes but I'm uncertain.
Thanks,
Willy
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 04:35:58PM +0100, P.Baauw wrote:
>
>
> From 4583d6c5a96413bc6b827863b2be8e0c5b68910b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Pieter Baauw
Hi Pieter,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:42:24PM +0100, P.Baauw wrote:
> Hi Willy, Baptiste,
>
> Hereby a 'backport' for 1.6.
> Hope its ok like this?
> I took a little different structure as i did for 1.7. But as there is no
> need to allow different keywords 'in the future' for 1.6 i think it is
Hi Willy, Baptiste,
Hereby a 'backport' for 1.6.
Hope its ok like this?
I took a little different structure as i did for 1.7. But as there is no
need to allow different keywords 'in the future' for 1.6 i think it is ok.
Regards,
Pieter
From a8346de18704ef283621aabf4cb2edc3ebb0ce6d Mon Sep 17
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:04:00PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> Hi and thanks for the feedback, indeed the performance will be affected
> (greatly) as you demonstrate that s for sure. I completely forgot the
> context of my tests those days and regarding your following questions about
> compilers
Hi and thanks for the feedback, indeed the performance will be affected
(greatly) as you demonstrate that s for sure. I completely forgot the
context of my tests those days and regarding your following questions about
compilers ; I might just have CFLAGS environment variable override whereas
I did
Hi again David,
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:52PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> Sure, it is mainly gcc 5.2/5.3, sometimes clang 3.6 depending the
> machine I was working on.
So I just rechecked on https://gcc.godbolt.org/ with the following versions :
- gcc 4.9
- gcc 5.1.0
- gcc 5.2.0
-
Hi David,
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:23:52PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> Sure, it is mainly gcc 5.2/5.3, sometimes clang 3.6 depending the
> machine I was working on.
I'm back (late) on this patch series.
So at this point I'm seeing that the memmem() and ebmb_lookup() functions
are
Hi Willy,
On 2/16/16 7:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:15:07PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
BTW, I have noticed that only master was applied by this patch. 1.6 branch
should be also applied in my opinion.
Yes it will definitely be, I'm lagging behind quite a bit on the
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:15:07PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> BTW, I have noticed that only master was applied by this patch. 1.6 branch
> should be also applied in my opinion.
Yes it will definitely be, I'm lagging behind quite a bit on the backports
and I generally prefer to apply them in the
Hey guys a first & late joining to the list.
I'd like to have a src / IP based sticky rule that uses one or two
combinations of query-string / get-parameters to determine stickiness.
One (1x) query-string is specifically for session/user id's (UID) and the
second (2x) to allow for specific
Hi Willy,
On 16/2/16 6:10PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Godbach,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:19:09PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
Hi Willy,
I have reviewed the DOC lua.txt twice. Attached is a patch for this
documentation to fix some typos and syntax errors.
The patch should be also backported to 1.6.
Hey!
The documentation of req.hdr() says that "name" is optional. However, no
match can bound without specifying the name. In `smp_fetch_hdr()`, we
have:
#v+
if (args) {
if (args[0].type != ARGT_STR)
return 0;
name_str =
Hi Godbach,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:19:09PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> I have reviewed the DOC lua.txt twice. Attached is a patch for this
> documentation to fix some typos and syntax errors.
>
> The patch should be also backported to 1.6.
>
> Any further amendment for this patch
19 matches
Mail list logo
