> On 12 Feb 2018, at 17:37, David CARLIER wrote:
>
> I think I m the one behing this relatively recent change ... why not adding
> in the condition the architecture ? e.g. !defined(__clang__) &&
> !defined(__i386__) ... something like this...
>
> Hope it is useful.
>
What about this change
Whatever works best for you. Regards.
On 14 February 2018 at 11:09, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
>
> > On 12 Feb 2018, at 17:37, David CARLIER wrote:
> >
> > I think I m the one behing this relatively recent change ... why not
> adding in the condition the architecture ? e.g. !defined(__clang__) &&
Hi there,
Aren't you tired looking yet again for a perfect translator?
If that is the case, seek no longer - we have the solution for you
Our company provides modern online translation services. We guarantee quick and
convenient translations of documents, websites or files. We cooperate with
Hi Willy,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 08:05:44PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
> Such type of construct tends to scare me (probably because I'm not reading
> the whole code). It means we're supposed to set an error by default unless
> we pass by a specific path. I fear that we'll get futur
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:29:57PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 08:05:44PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Olivier,
> > Such type of construct tends to scare me (probably because I'm not reading
> > the whole code). It means we're supposed to set an err
Hi,
On 14.02.2018 17:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:29:57PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
What about what's attached, instead ?
I think it should work. Mateusz, care to give it a try to confirm ?
If OK, I'll merge it.
I confirm, with this patch applied problem is gone.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:20:42PM +0100, Mateusz Malek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14.02.2018 17:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:29:57PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > > What about what's attached, instead ?
> > I think it should work. Mateusz, care to give it a try to confirm
On 2/13/2018 7:49 AM, Andrew Smalley wrote:
> We have had a request and not sure if there is any way to implement this.
>
> Simply think of two real servers being loadbalanced. one fails all the
> connections are moved to the remaining server overloading it.
>
> What we want is for the traffic fr
Hello Shawn
Thank you for your reply.
It is pretty much a verification of what we thought this end.
Ill go back to the customer and let them know what Microsoft suggest
is not possible.
Andruw Smalley
Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
www.loadbalancer.org
+1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
asmal...@lo
9 matches
Mail list logo