Hi Johannes,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:49:18AM +, Bitsch, Johannes (external - Project)
wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I checked my patch file from a few weeks ago using the recommended
> checkpatch.pl [1] and realized that the indentation was off as well as some
> other small things.
> To make
Hi Iago,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Iago Alonso wrote:
> We are happy to report that after downgrading to OpenSSL 1.1.1s (from
> 3.0.7), our performance problems are solved, and now looks like
> HAProxy scales linearly with the available resources.
Excellent, thanks for this nice
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:04:14AM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > 0x0af892c770b0 : mov%r12,%rdi
> > 0x0af892c770b3 : callq 0xaf892c24e40
> >
> > 0x0af892c770b8 : mov%rax,%r12
> > 0x0af892c770bb : test %rax,%rax
> > 0x0af892c770be : je
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:59:16PM -0600, Marc West wrote:
> On 2023-01-24 23:04:14, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:05:37PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:15:08PM -0600, Marc West wrote:
> > > > > Stupid question but I prefer to ask in order to
On 2023-01-24 23:04:14, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:05:37PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:15:08PM -0600, Marc West wrote:
> > > > Stupid question but I prefer to ask in order to be certain, are all of
> > > > these 32 threads located on the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:05:37PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:15:08PM -0600, Marc West wrote:
> > > Stupid question but I prefer to ask in order to be certain, are all of
> > > these 32 threads located on the same physical CPU ? I just want to be
> > > sure that locks
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:15:08PM -0600, Marc West wrote:
> > Stupid question but I prefer to ask in order to be certain, are all of
> > these 32 threads located on the same physical CPU ? I just want to be
> > sure that locks (kernel or user) are not traveling between multiple CPU
> > sockets,
On 2023-01-24 06:58:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Marc,
Hi Willy,
> See the difference ? There seems to be an insane FD locking cost on this
> system that simply wastes 40% of the CPU there. So I suspect that in your
> first tests you were stressing the locking while in the last ones you
> were
We are happy to report that after downgrading to OpenSSL 1.1.1s (from
3.0.7), our performance problems are solved, and now looks like
HAProxy scales linearly with the available resources.
For reference, in a synthetic load test with a request payload of 2k,
and a 32-core server (128GB RAM) with
Hi,
HAProxy 2.5.11 was released on 2023/01/24. It added 65 new commits
after version 2.5.10.
As for the 2.6.8, this release includes the fix about the "set-uri" HTTP
action. This fix was delayed for the 2.5.10. It is now shipped with the
2.5.11. The behavior of this action is no longer the
Hi,
HAProxy 2.6.8 was released on 2023/01/23. It added 94 new commits
after version 2.6.7.
The delayed fix about the "set-uri" HTTP action that was not included in the
2.6.7 was finally backported and shipped with this release. The behavior of
this action is no longer the same. This action is
11 matches
Mail list logo
