RR if you deploy your solution to multiple data centers.
Anze
On Thursday 06 January 2011, Angelo Höngens wrote:
> Round robin is not the same as random.
>
> If a host name has 4 A records, then most DNS servers (if not all) will
> return it round-robin. So first a.a.a.1, then a
access the data. The change should be trivial.
If the code is not yours and you are not allowed to change it, there could
still be some way to fix this. For instance, in PHP you could try
autoprepending this code:
That's ugly, of course, but it should still be much faster than Apache
rewrit
you should probably run ab for more than just a few
seconds.
Anze
On Thursday 07 October 2010, Les Stroud wrote:
> My goal in this testing was to produce a report for management showing how
> haproxy with the four tomcats increased capacity and improved scale vs
> having direct access
requests no matter how old they are, so the data is at least served.
Is this possible with haproxy?
The way I see it, the states should be:
- UP
- WARNING = UP if there is no other UP server, otherwise DOWN
- DOWN
Not sure this is the best way to deal with this problem... Any ideas?
Thanks,
Anze
Nick, try rather:
$ curl 10.202.197.103:7000
$ curl 10.208.202.70:7000
You are not using localhost:7000 in your config, but web02:7000 and web01:7000
instead.
Anze
On Tuesday 03 August 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:13:29PM -0500, Nick Hilem wro
Nick, try rather:
$ curl 10.202.197.103:7000
$ curl 10.208.202.70:7000
You are not using localhost:7000 in your config, but web02:7000 and web01:7000
instead.
Anze
On Tuesday 03 August 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:13:29PM -0500, Nick Hi
t occured to me... :D
Thanks again, I think I'll be able to fix it now. :)
Anze
On Saturday 24 July 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Anze,
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 03:10:21PM +0200, Anze wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I hope this is not too "newbie" quest
rs cope with the problem of upgrading the app? I would appreciate
some ideas.
Thanks,
Anze
r
pointers on where to look for problematic sections.
I can't promise it will be soon though, we have a lot of work right now... but
I'll do my best.
Thanks,
Anze
body? Can you point out some of the errors so I can
avoid them?
Thanks,
Anze
On Friday 12 March 2010, Anze wrote:
> Hi!
>
> First of all: Willy Tarreau & others, thank you for a great piece of
> software! It just works. :)
>
> PHP has a bug when errors in PHP code do n
plans to add
it to the trunk?
Thanks,
Anze
On Wednesday 17 March 2010, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le Mardi 16 Mars 2010 21:35:10, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> > I'm now gathering my changes and committing your patch with the small
> > fixes above. That way we can
t to do if..." kind of guide / book
(depends on volume and the will to deal with publishers).
Thanks,
Anze
On Tuesday 16 March 2010, Hervé COMMOWICK wrote:
> Hello Anze,
>
> Willy already wrote this a while ago :
>
> http://1wt.eu/articles/2006_lb/
>
> Hervé
>
the subject? I don't mean haproxy configuration but its possible
deployments, common setups,...
Anze
On Tuesday 16 March 2010, Mikołaj Radzewicz wrote:
> Hmm, it is little not what I thought... We have DDoS due to our links
> are put on high load site. I wanted to check referrers dy
Hi Nick, it's a bit late now and I'm not sure I will be able to test this
tomorrow... I have quite a lot to do. Will try asap, if not sooner, by Monday.
But I'll try to do it tomorrow.
> Thanks for your help debugging this.
Thanks for your help in solving this. :D
Thanks,
age. You can find more info
about haproxy (not) supporting HTTPS there too.
Enjoy!
Anze
to check whether it defaults to checking the HTTP return
> code in these cases.
I have tested GET with the fixed version (no half-closed socket) and it works.
But it would still be good if you checked it out for sure. There are a lot of
existing configs that are setup like this - it wouldn't be good if they broke
down in next version. ;)
Thanks,
Anze
ometime later anyway.
In other words: I can't say that this is a correct way to deal with the
problem - I haven't got a clue. But it works now.
Does it shed any light on the issue?
Thanks,
Anze
ck.php HTTP/1.0
> >http-check expect rstring all_is_ok
> >
> > The 'string' test should work, but it's had less testing than
> > 'rstring'. I've not tried the HEAD method; I can't see it working with
> > 'expect'.
>
On Saturday 13 March 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:55:59PM +0100, Anze wrote:
> > On Friday 12 March 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > It is possible with the patch that Nick Chalk recently posted in
> > > > > the thread &qu
On Friday 12 March 2010, Anze wrote:
> The servers (and check.php files on them) are available, I can `wget` the
> check files. Any idea what is going on or how I could get more info about
> why it is failing?
Additional info: I have tried version 1.4.1 without patch and httpchk works
files. Any idea what is going on or how I could get more info about why
it is failing?
Thanks,
Anze
On Friday 12 March 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:32:16AM +0100, Anze wrote:
> > I know this is not really haproxy's problem (the bug is on the PHP side),
> > but reliability would be much higher if haproxy could compare the
> > response body to
fail.
Any chance this can be done with haproxy?
Thanks,
Anze
fail.
Any chance this can be done with haproxy?
Thanks,
Anze
24 matches
Mail list logo
