Hi Bertrand,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:00:14PM +, Bertrand Jacquin wrote:
> Yep, all of this sounds legit. Please find attache a new patch serie
> attempting to address all your concerns.
Perfect and fairly complete, thank you! I've just applied them both.
Cheers,
Willy
Hi all,
On 05/02/2019 05:37, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi guys,
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:13:11PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Since TLS ciphers are not well understand, it is very common parameters
> from documentation are used as is. Since RC4 should not be used anymore
> I believe it is wiser
Ricardo,
Am 06.02.19 um 17:28 schrieb Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez:
> Hello,
>
> scan-build found a 28-step path where an unitialized value could be used in
> h2s_htx_bck_make_req_headers().
>
> Here is a shortened version:
>
> 4378 idx = htx_get_head(htx); // returns the SL that we skip
>
Hi James.
Am 06.02.2019 um 16:16 schrieb James Root:
> Hi All,
>
> I am doing some research and have not really found a great way to configure
> HAProxy to get the desired results. The problem I face is that I a service
> backed by two separate collections of servers. I would like to split
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 06, Steve GIRAUD wrote:
> Effectively, the header size is 17 556 bytes.
Is the large header(s) only on response (and not on request) ?
(Is it one large header 17k header ?)
> If I increase the bufsize to 40 000 bytes and the maxrewrite to 20 000 the
> request failed.
For me
Hello,
scan-build found a 28-step path where an unitialized value could be used in
h2s_htx_bck_make_req_headers().
Here is a shortened version:
4378 idx = htx_get_head(htx); // returns the SL that we skip
4379 while ((idx = htx_get_next(htx, idx)) != -1) {
4380
Hi Aleks,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:16:58PM +0100, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Maybe this patch was to late for 1.9.4 please can you consider to add it
> to 2.0 and later 1.9.5, thanks.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg32693.html
I wanted to check it with Christopher
Hi willy.
Am 06.02.2019 um 15:25 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Hi,
>
> HAProxy 1.9.4 was released on 2019/02/06. It added 65 new commits
> after version 1.9.3.
Images are updated.
https://hub.docker.com/r/me2digital/haproxy-19-boringssl
https://hub.docker.com/r/me2digital/haproxy19
Maybe this
Hi,
HAProxy 1.8.18 was released on 2019/02/06. It added 39 new commits
after version 1.8.17.
The changes here are fairly limited but worth a release, in an effort
to clean the net from previous versions which were affected by the TLS
1.3 KeyUpdate bug that currently prevents browsers from using
Hi there,
I don't have much opinion about this one :)
And I did not meet anybody needing such solution for now.
>From an implementation point of view, as far as I understand, the idea is
to write/read a DNS payload to/from an HTTP request. We already have the
primitives to do this. The "most"
Hi All,
I am doing some research and have not really found a great way to configure
HAProxy to get the desired results. The problem I face is that I a service
backed by two separate collections of servers. I would like to split
traffic between these two clusters (either using percentages or
Thanks a lot, and sorry for my misinterpretation :-)
Cheers,
Federico
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 14:59, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Hi Federico.
>
> Am 06.02.2019 um 15:33 schrieb Federico Iezzi:
> > Hey there,
> >
> > Maybe this is gonna be a very simple answer.
> > In HAProxy 1.5.18 seems that the
Hi Federico.
Am 06.02.2019 um 15:33 schrieb Federico Iezzi:
> Hey there,
>
> Maybe this is gonna be a very simple answer.
> In HAProxy 1.5.18 seems that the defaults maxconn have a global influence and
> not per backend one.
>
> In my case I have global maxconn at 5120001, while defaults at
Hi Willy,
Thanks a lot for bringing up this topic, long time I wanted to spend time
on this!
We discussed my point during a lunch, but I want to share it here as well.
I think one of the most important piece is guide lines on integrating
HAProxy with third parties, IE: Observing HAProxy with
Hey there,
Maybe this is gonna be a very simple answer.
In HAProxy 1.5.18 seems that the defaults maxconn have a global influence
and not per backend one.
In my case I have global maxconn at 5120001, while defaults at 256. What
I'm trying to achieve is to set for all my backends the
same maxconn
Hi,
HAProxy 1.9.4 was released on 2019/02/06. It added 65 new commits
after version 1.9.3.
The main focus in terms of time spent was clearly on end-to-end H2
correctness, which involves both the H2 protocol itself and the idle
connections management. It's difficult to enumerate in details all
Effectively, the header size is 17 556 bytes.
If I increase the bufsize to 40 000 bytes and the maxrewrite to 20 000 the
request failed.
--
Steve Giraud
De : Jarno Huuskonen
Envoyé : mercredi 6 février 2019 09:36
À : Steve GIRAUD
Cc : haproxy@formilux.org
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 06, Steve GIRAUD wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> Has anyone ever found that HAProxy returns a 502 error when ssl offload is
> enabled and the http response contains a very long header.
> If I turn off SSL offload , all is OK with the same header.
What's the size of the (very long)
Hello everybody,
Has anyone ever found that HAProxy returns a 502 error when ssl offload is
enabled and the http response contains a very long header.
If I turn off SSL offload , all is OK with the same header.
I Use HaProxy 1.8.17 on PFSense 2.4.4p1
Regards,
uname -a
FreeBSD PFSHA3.statim.fr
19 matches
Mail list logo
