> On Apr 26, 2017, at Apr 26, 2:13 AM, jaseywang wrote:
>
> Hi
> @Willy @Cyril do you have any recommended config for ssl related setting, we
> now use nbproc and cpu-map to distribute the load to each cpu, though haproxy
> can work with cdn now, it's performance is not
Hi
@Willy @Cyril do you have any recommended config for ssl related setting,
we now use nbproc and cpu-map to distribute the load to each cpu, though
haproxy can work with cdn now, it's performance is not as good as before
without cdn, user time of each core is almost saturated.
Thanks.
On Tue,
Awesome! It seems it's really something related with SSL handshakes, We
open 80 port without https and let cdn connect to our 80 port, everything
seems fine.
I'll update this thread laters.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:00:48PM
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:00:48PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Here is the data with debug mode off, still the same issue:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/4x0cjfv1o2kmwg3/analytics-debug-off.txt?dl=0
>
>
> Flat profile:
>
> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
> no time accumulated
>
> %
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:32:16PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Here is the analytics data, dropbox link:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rn92z42ao5l5rdo/analytics.txt?dl=0
Thank you. Well, everything there looks pretty good, with low CPU usage
everywhere and normal number of calls for each function.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:26:53PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> yes, really permission issue, here is the gmon.out file:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/c5wq7oxdjw0ddj0/gmon.out?dl=0
I can't do anything from it since it's specific to your executable.
> not sure how this happen:
> # gprof
yes, really permission issue, here is the gmon.out file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c5wq7oxdjw0ddj0/gmon.out?dl=0
not sure how this happen:
# gprof /usr/sbin/haproxy /var/lib/haproxy/gmon.out
gprof: file `/usr/sbin/haproxy' has no symbols
# gprof haproxy /var/lib/haproxy/gmon.out
haproxy: No
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:43:22PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Build options :
> TARGET = linux2628
> CPU = generic
> CC = gcc
> CFLAGS = -pg -O2 -fwrapv -g -fno-strict-aliasing
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement -DTCP_USER_TIMEOUT=18
> OPTIONS = USE_LINUX_TPROXY=1 USE_ZLIB=1
Hi @Willy
I compile the source with your make parameter like this:
haproxy -vv
HA-Proxy version 1.7.5 2017/04/03
Copyright 2000-2017 Willy Tarreau
Build options :
TARGET = linux2628
CPU = generic
CC = gcc
CFLAGS = -pg -O2 -fwrapv -g -fno-strict-aliasing
Hi Cyril,
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 06:09:11PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> > De: "Willy Tarreau"
> > À: "jaseywang"
>
> [...]
>
> > > Below is the data during benchmark:
> > > *maxsock = *136; *maxconn = *50; *maxpipes = *0
> > > current
Hi Willy,
> De: "Willy Tarreau"
> À: "jaseywang"
[...]
> > Below is the data during benchmark:
> > *maxsock = *136; *maxconn = *50; *maxpipes = *0
> > current conns = 7488; current pipes = 0/0; conn rate = 322/sec
> > Running tasks: 7366/7449; idle =
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 08:33:14PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Before 08:24:30 PM, the data is normal, after that I began the benchmark,
> here is data:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yu2jsirv104ytwp/1.7.5-tcp-2?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8dap4kus5sj6by7/1.7.5-sess-2?dl=0
These ones also show
>
> OK these ones are interesting. First, none of the CLOSE_WAIT connections
> in the
> netstat file is present in the "show sess" output. Might it be possible
> that
> these ones are left-overs from a previous run ? Could you please
> double-check
> that you don't have an older process still
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 05:29:14PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the 1.7.5 output with CDN, before 05:22:00 PM with timestamps in
> the file, there is no request, since 05:22:00 PM, I began the benchmark, so
> you can check from 05:22:00 PM.
> 61.155.222.157 is cdn itself
>
>
> The
Hi,
Here is the 1.7.5 output with CDN, before 05:22:00 PM with timestamps in
the file, there is no request, since 05:22:00 PM, I began the benchmark, so
you can check from 05:22:00 PM.
61.155.222.157 is cdn itself
The file is large here is the download link:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 02:43:54PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> What you see is the data without cdn, you can get more data from the below
> section:
>
>
> Let haproxy sit behind in CDN, the session rate is around 270/s , current
> > session is around 10k. below is the stats from haproxy and tcp.
What you see is the data without cdn, you can get more data from the below
section:
Let haproxy sit behind in CDN, the session rate is around 270/s , current
> session is around 10k. below is the stats from haproxy and tcp.
> current conns = 14269; current pipes = 0/0; conn rate = 270/sec
>
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:01:27PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Without CDN, the session rate is around 2k/s, current session is around 120:
> current conns = 118; current pipes = 0/0; conn rate = 1938/sec
> Running tasks: 2/127; idle = 42 %
>
> 111.111.111.111 is our haproxy public ip which
Really appreciate your time debugging this issue, it's really critical for
our production env, if you need more details I'll try my best to provide
them, thanks a lot!
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:45:38PM +0800, jaseywang
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:45:38PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Hi, @Willy, do you receive my updates, seems the mail message size is too
> large?
I got them but still no time to take a look, but yes I have them so no need
to retransmit.
Willy
Hi, @Willy, do you receive my updates, seems the mail message size is too
large?
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:37:52PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> > >
> > > Could you please confirm that most of the CLOSE_WAIT are on the front
>
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:37:52PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> >
> > Could you please confirm that most of the CLOSE_WAIT are on the front side
> > and the ESTABLISHED on the backend side ? If that's the case, can you also
> > please verify if there are pending data in the send queue for CLOSE_WAIT
>
> Could you please confirm that most of the CLOSE_WAIT are on the front side
> and the ESTABLISHED on the backend side ? If that's the case, can you also
> please verify if there are pending data in the send queue for CLOSE_WAIT
> sockets (3rd column in netstat) ?
>
Most of the
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:42PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> 1. The backlog of haproxy soon become full and begin to drop new tcp
> connection since peak traffic begin, before CDN, our net.core.somaxconn is
> 1024, and use default backlog of haproxy, everything performs well. After
> using CDN,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:23:53AM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Hi, Willy
> Thanks for your help. We upgrade the version from 1.5.4 to 1.5.19, but
> still the same issue, and what's your recommended version we can use for
> production env?
OK nice, at least you're not facing one of the many already
Hi, Willy
Thanks for your help. We upgrade the version from 1.5.4 to 1.5.19, but
still the same issue, and what's your recommended version we can use for
production env?
$ haproxy -vv
HA-Proxy version 1.5.19 2016/12/25
Copyright 2000-2016 Willy Tarreau
Build options :
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:42PM +0800, jaseywang wrote:
> Our haproxy 1.5.4 MS cluster performs quite well before, and the peak
(...)
> Now, the weird thing is why haproxy has so many closewait connections? and
> why the backlog queue soon becomes full? Usually so many closewait means
>
Our haproxy 1.5.4 MS cluster performs quite well before, and the peak
current connections is about 6k. Haproxy forward the request from client to
Nginx, Nginx send the request to upstream JVM servers like this:
client -> Haproxy -> Nginx -> upstream
This week we use CDN to accept request from
28 matches
Mail list logo