Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:34:45AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: > And after performing the same tests with the patch applied, I can confirm I > don't reproduce the issue anymore ;-) Cool, thanks for your feedback Cyril! Willy

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

Hi all, Le 21/12/2017 à 15:25, Willy Tarreau a écrit : On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Emeric Brun wrote: Hi All, This bug should be fixed using this patch (patch on dev, abd should be backported in 1.8). now applied to both branches,, thanks! Willy And after performing the

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Emeric Brun wrote: > Hi All, > > This bug should be fixed using this patch (patch on dev, abd should be > backported in 1.8). now applied to both branches,, thanks! Willy

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

Hi All, This bug should be fixed using this patch (patch on dev, abd should be backported in 1.8). R, Emeric On 12/21/2017 10:42 AM, Greg Nolle wrote: > Thanks guys! I should be able to test the new version this weekend if you are > able to issue it before then. > > Best regards, > Greg > >

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

Thanks guys! I should be able to test the new version this weekend if you are able to issue it before then. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:04:11AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Le 20/12/2017 à

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:04:11AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Le 20/12/2017 à 22:42, Greg Nolle a écrit : > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Thanks for the info but I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything here that > > would affect the issue I'm seeing, and by the way the docs don't > > indicate

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

Hi Greg, Le 20/12/2017 à 22:42, Greg Nolle a écrit : Hi Andrew, Thanks for the info but I’m afraid I’m not seeing anything here that would affect the issue I’m seeing, and by the way the docs don’t indicate that the cookie names have to match the server names. First, don't worry about the

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

gt; >>> Greg > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Andrew Smalley > >>> <asmal...@loadbalancer.org> wrote: > >>>> Hi Greg > >>>> > >>>> You say traffic still goes to the real server when in

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

>> <asmal...@loadbalancer.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Greg >>>> >>>> You say traffic still goes to the real server when in MAINT mode, >>>> Assuming you mean DRAIN Mode and not HALTED then this is expected. >>>> >>>> Existing connections stil

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

e. >>> >>> If the real server is HALTED then no traffic gets to it. >>> >>> >>> Andruw Smalley >>> >>> Loadbalancer.org Ltd. >>> >>> www.loadbalancer.org >>> +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 >>> asma

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

Ltd. >> >> www.loadbalancer.org >> +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 >> asmal...@loadbalancer.org >> >> Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog >> >> >> On 20 December 2017 at 20:26, Greg Nolle <greg.no...@voidbridge.com> wrote:

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

Smalley > > Loadbalancer.org Ltd. > > www.loadbalancer.org > +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 > asmal...@loadbalancer.org > > Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog > > > On 20 December 2017 at 20:26, Greg Nolle <greg.no...@voidbridge.com> wrote: &g

Re: Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

to it. Andruw Smalley Loadbalancer.org Ltd. www.loadbalancer.org +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064 asmal...@loadbalancer.org Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog On 20 December 2017 at 20:26, Greg Nolle <greg.no...@voidbridge.com> wrote: > When cookie persistence is used,

Traffic delivered to disabled server when cookie persistence is enabled after upgrading to 1.8.1

When cookie persistence is used, it seems that the status of the servers in the backend is ignored in v1.8.1. I try marking as MAINT a backend server for which my browser has been given a cookie but subsequent requests still go to that server (as verified in the stats). The same issue happens when

Cookie persistence - what I am I doing wrong?

I'm trying to ensure that multiple connections from the same browser end up on the same back end server, and having lots of trouble. All my work with haproxy up to now has been with connections that don't need persistence - everything relevant happens in one http request. This is probably PEBCAK

Re: Cookie persistence - what I am I doing wrong?

Hi Shawn, Le 15/01/2015 01:59, Shawn Heisey a écrit : I'm trying to ensure that multiple connections from the same browser end up on the same back end server, and having lots of trouble. All my work with haproxy up to now has been with connections that don't need persistence - everything

cookie persistence when a server is down

Hello, I'm testing HAProxy's cookie based persistence feature(s) and I have a question. Currently I have 2 test servers set up behind HAProxy. They use a JSESSIONID cookie like many java application servers. In haproxy.cfg I have these persistence settings: server server1 127.0.0.1:9443

Cookie Persistence and Backend Recognition of Server Change

I'm thinking of using cookie persistence to stick a user to the same backend (if available) for all requests coming from the user. But, I need to handle the case where HAProxy switches the user to a different backend (because the original backend has gone offline or MAXCONN reached) than

Re: Cookie Persistence and Backend Recognition of Server Change

sessionDB to the localhost sessionDB (updating the SESSION_ID cookie) before proceeding to handle the request. On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Kevin Heatwole ke...@heatwoles.us wrote: I'm thinking of using cookie persistence to stick a user to the same backend (if available) for all requests coming from

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

Brilliant! Thanks for keeping us up to date. Cheers

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:34:04AM +0100, eni-urge...@scan-eco.com wrote: Hello and thank you for your answer. I thought it was something to do with monitor fail if but i didn't understand that it's possible to count the number of server on a backend. In fact, the nbsrv ACL was made

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

Hello and thank you for your answer. I thought it was something to do with monitor fail if but i didn't understand that it's possible to count the number of server on a backend. I will test this asap. and write back to the mailing list Thanks to you for your help and thanks to the dev team

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

hello thank you for your advise. I dont know why i configure 2 different backend. I think i saw this config on a website and thinking that was the best for me. Le 26/01/2012 07:33, Baptiste a écrit : Bonjour, Well, as far as I can see, this is due to your configuration! Why routing user

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

I followed some willy's advise in a old mail http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.haproxy/3238 Le 26/01/2012 17:08, eni-urge...@scan-eco.com a écrit : hello thank you for your advise. I dont know why i configure 2 different backend. I think i saw this config on a website and thinking

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

Ok, I understand now why you're doing like that :) Let me update Willy's example: frontend site1 bind :80 monitor-uri /check monitor fail if { nbsrv(local) le 0 } acl local_ok nbsrv(local) gt 0 acl site2_ok nbsrv(site2) gt 0 acl site3_ok

Re: multi location and cookie persistence on SERVERID

Bonjour, Well, as far as I can see, this is due to your configuration! Why routing user in the frontend using the persistance cookie? You should take routing decision based on the number of servers remaining in a backend or using some options like allbackups and puting all your server in a single

Re: Cookie persistence

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:55:25PM +0900, Ist Conne wrote: So, It is difficult problem. Do we have not Workaround? I am not a lawyer either but I would recommend at some point that you leave patent issues aside. If you really care about them, then you'll quickly need to find another job :

Re: Cookie persistence

Thanks for reply So, It is difficult problem. Do we have not Workaround? 2011/10/17 Holger Just hapr...@meine-er.de: On 2011-10-17 14:48, Ist Conne wrote: HAProxy is supported cookie-based persistence. But, cookie-based Load balancing has a patented F5 Networks.

Cookie persistence

Hello, HAProxy is supported cookie-based persistence. But, cookie-based Load balancing has a patented F5 Networks. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3MYLEBAJ UltraMonkey-L7 was once implemented, but has now stopped working. HAProxy do not have this patent-problem? That the no problem

Re: Cookie persistence

On 2011-10-17 14:48, Ist Conne wrote: HAProxy is supported cookie-based persistence. But, cookie-based Load balancing has a patented F5 Networks. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3MYLEBAJ Without being a lawyer, I'd play the prior art card as HAProxy supported cookie based