Hi Willy,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 08:53:51AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:29:15PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > From 7c9f06727cf60acf873353ac71283ff9c562aeee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Olivier Houchard
> > Date:
At the moment, AWS's provided DNS servers and Route53 appear to always
match the question case in the answer. (As do Google's DNS servers)
Bind seems to be the odd man out in not doing that by default.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jim Freeman wrote:
> It will be
Le 11/04/2018 à 16:11, Hessam Mirsadeghi a écrit :
Hi Christopher,
You're right; that segfault happens with the build at the faulty commit
and not later versions such as v1.8.5.
However, version v1.8.5 does segfault with the attached modified Lua
script. As far as I can tell, the problem
Thanks for your response Christopher.
What I want is to overwrite each http response with another custom response.
I'm not talking about manipulating headers only; I want to overwrite the whole
response.
Thanks,
Seyed
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Christopher Faulet
It will be important to know which behavior AWS's Route53/DNS servers use ?
Using stock Debian/Stretch BIND9 (1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-12.3+deb9u4), we see
haproxy downing backend servers with
"Server is going DOWN for maintenance (unspecified DNS error)."
Le 12/04/2018 à 14:51, Hessam a écrit :
Thanks for your response Christopher.
What I want is to overwrite each http response with another custom response.
I'm not talking about manipulating headers only; I want to overwrite the whole
response.
AKAIK, using Lua it is no possible. I guess
But using an applet on a request will prevent the request from being sent
to the backend servers; I still want backend servers to receive the request.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Christopher Faulet
wrote:
> Le 12/04/2018 à 14:51, Hessam a écrit :
>
>> Thanks for your
Hi Willy,
Op 12-4-2018 om 1:19 schreef Willy Tarreau:
Thank you very much for pointing the exact line that causes you trouble.
Well exact line.. probably not the right one. And yes just removing that
line indeed breaks something else. (as expected..)
Would you have the ability to try the
Hi,
I have a question regarding haproxy backend connection behaviour. We have
following setup:
+-+ +---+
| haproxy |>| nginx |
+-+ +---+
We use a haproxy cluster for ssl off-loading and then load balance request
to
nginx cluster. We are currently
This changes the parser to run section postparsers once per section
instance, rather than only when the section type changes.
This is motivated by the work discussed in
https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg29527.html. It should
make it easy to produce the warning mentioned in the
Hi Willy,
And a second mail as i just thought of one extra thing you wrote that
maybe i misunderstand or perhaps confused you with a small remark about
cpu usage in my earlier mail (that was a side effect of my other earlier
but totally wrong code change..).
I'm suspecting we could have
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:14:58PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > > @@ -3718,6 +3719,8 @@ int http_process_request(struct stream *s, struct
> > > channel *req, int an_bit)
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > + /* XXX: We probably need a better mux */
> >
Hi we're evaluating haproxy for use as the load balancer in front of our
mesos cluster. What we are finding is that even though we have requested
the check option in the server line, haproxy attempts to serve traffic to
the server on startup until the first healthcheck completes.
server slot1
Hi Willy,
Op 13-4-2018 om 0:22 schreef Willy Tarreau:
By the way you must really not try to debug an
old version but stick to the latest fixes.
Okay testing from now on with current master, just thought it would be
easier to backtrack if i knew what particular new/missing event would
possibly
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:25:58PM -0600, Ben Draut wrote:
> This changes the parser to run section postparsers once per section
> instance, rather than only when the section type changes.
>
> This is motivated by the work discussed in
>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 02:25:58PM -0600, Ben Draut wrote:
> > This changes the parser to run section postparsers once per section
> > instance, rather than only when the section type changes.
> >
> > This is
I have a script on my system that I use to handle compiling and
installing a new haproxy version. That script has
"EXTRA=haproxy-systemd-wrapper"on the line that does the install.
It looks like that's no longer part of haproxy, and that the systemd
service definition (included in contrib)
Hi Olivier,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:29:15PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> From 7c9f06727cf60acf873353ac71283ff9c562aeee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Olivier Houchard
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:23:17 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR: connection: Setup a mux
18 matches
Mail list logo