Re: [PATCH] MEDIUM: config: Add user/group options to program section

2019-07-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:50:25AM +0800, Andrew Heberle wrote: > Hi Willy, > > It looks like my mailer was mangling the tabs so I'm hoping > my (first) attempt at using git send-patch is more > successful. > > I have also updated the commit message. Looks much better indeed :-) I'll let

[PATCH] MEDIUM: config: Add user/group options to program section

2019-07-11 Thread Andrew Heberle
This patch adds "user" and "group" config options to the "program" section so the configured command can be run as a different user. --- doc/configuration.txt | 8 ++ include/types/global.h | 2 ++ src/mworker-prog.c | 70 ++ 3 files

Re: [PATCH] MEDIUM: config: Add user/group options to program section

2019-07-11 Thread Andrew Heberle
Hi Willy, It looks like my mailer was mangling the tabs so I'm hoping my (first) attempt at using git send-patch is more successful. I have also updated the commit message. Thanks. Regards, Andrew Heberle

Re: [PATCH] MEDIUM: config: Add user/group options to program section

2019-07-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Andrew, On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:12:42AM +0800, Andrew Heberle wrote: > This patch adds "user" and "group" config options to the "program" > section so the configured command can be run as a different user. > > I re-used the setuid/setgid code from "haproxy.c" for this so I'm > hoping there

Re: Runaway process

2019-07-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Sander, On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:28:50PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote: > On 2019-07-11 12:27, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > Try attaching to the process with `gdb -p 12345` with 12345 being the > > process ID. Then: > > > > 1. Get a backtrace for all threads: thread apply all bt > > 2. Generate a

[PATCH] MEDIUM: config: Add user/group options to program section

2019-07-11 Thread Andrew Heberle
This patch adds "user" and "group" config options to the "program" section so the configured command can be run as a different user. I re-used the setuid/setgid code from "haproxy.c" for this so I'm hoping there are not terrible bugs I've introduced :) Regards, Andrew Heberle >From

Re: Unify equal acl between backends

2019-07-11 Thread Lukas Tribus
Hello Ricardo, On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 10:01, Ricardo Fraile wrote: > I tried to set the list under single and double quotes, the error > disappears but it didn't work. Using () and {} still had the error. > Setting only one extension works, two, only with the first on the list. > > What is the

Re: Upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0 = increased CPU usage

2019-07-11 Thread Lukas Tribus
Hello Elias, On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 17:05, Elias Abacioglu wrote: > > I just reverted back to haproxy 1.7 now. > To be more accurate, CPU idle is around ~48% for core 2-3. I suggest to wait for 2.0.2 or pull the current 2.0 git tree. 2.0.1 just contains too many bugs at this point. Lukas

Re: Server IP address not being preserved from server state file

2019-07-11 Thread Jerome Magnin
Hi On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:15:19PM -0400, Shaun Tarves wrote: > Hi - > > I am trying to determine why my servers' IP address is not being preserved > through a reload when written to the server state file. I'm using version > 1.9.8 on alpine linux. > > CONFIGURATION: > global >

Server IP address not being preserved from server state file

2019-07-11 Thread Shaun Tarves
Hi - I am trying to determine why my servers' IP address is not being preserved through a reload when written to the server state file. I'm using version 1.9.8 on alpine linux. CONFIGURATION: global server-state-file /usr/local/etc/haproxy/haproxy.state defaults load-server-state-from-file

Re: Upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0 = increased CPU usage

2019-07-11 Thread Elias Abacioglu
I just reverted back to haproxy 1.7 now. To be more accurate, CPU idle is around ~48% for core 2-3. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:38 PM Elias Abacioglu < elias.abacio...@deltaprojects.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I just upgraded HAproxy from 1.7.11 to 2.0.1. > > After the upgrade with the same

Upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0 = increased CPU usage

2019-07-11 Thread Elias Abacioglu
Hi, I just upgraded HAproxy from 1.7.11 to 2.0.1. After the upgrade with the same configuration as in 1.7 CPU went from 35-40% idle for core 2-3 to ~0% using a setup like this: # (P#0) - process 1 - NIC/IRQ # (P#1) - process 2 - NIC/IRQ # (P#2) - process 3 - HAP # (P#3) - process

Re: FW: HAProxy??

2019-07-11 Thread Bruno Henc
Hello Austin, for any sales inquiries regarding HAProxy Enterprise Edition please contact sales @ haproxy . com or use the webform at https://www.haproxy.com/contact-us/ . The mailing list is for the discussion of HAProxy Community Edition. I have forward your email to the sales team which

Re: FW: HAProxy??

2019-07-11 Thread Aleksandar Lazic
Dear Austin Getz. Am 11.07.2019 um 15:15 schrieb Austin Getz: > Hello Team, > > Can you please provide two quotes for the below for ETS? > > ETS Needs to purchase the Enterprise Edition of HA Proxy > (https://www.haproxy.com/products/haproxy-enterprise-edition/) so that we have > support from

FW: HAProxy??

2019-07-11 Thread Austin Getz
Hello Team, Can you please provide two quotes for the below for ETS? ETS Needs to purchase the Enterprise Edition of HA Proxy (https://www.haproxy.com/products/haproxy-enterprise-edition/) so that we have support from the vendor and can maintain high availability in AWS. We will require two

Re: Runaway process

2019-07-11 Thread Sander Klein
On 2019-07-11 12:27, Tim Düsterhus wrote: Try attaching to the process with `gdb -p 12345` with 12345 being the process ID. Then: 1. Get a backtrace for all threads: thread apply all bt 2. Generate a core file: generate-core-file If you are also able to connect to the stats socket of that

Re: Runaway process

2019-07-11 Thread Tim Düsterhus
Sander, Am 11.07.19 um 08:48 schrieb Sander Klein: > I seem to have runaway HAProxy process since yesterday evening around > 20:50. This process is eating up 100% CPU continously. (HAProxy 1.9.8) > > Of course I can just kill it and go on with my life, but I was wondering > if there was any

Re: 1.9 external health checks fail suddenly

2019-07-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Veiko, On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:10:35AM +, Veiko Kukk wrote: > On 2019-07-09 14:29, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > I didn't have a patch but just did it. It was only compile-tested, > > please verify that it works as expected on a non-sensitive machine > > first! > > Hi, Willy > > Against

Re: [PATCH] DOC: Fix typos and grammer in configuration.txt

2019-07-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hello John, On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 03:54:12PM -0500, John Roesler wrote: > Hello, > > I have attached a patch containing typo and minor grammar corrections in > the configuration.txt file. > > I appreciate all the work the HAProxy team does and I hope my small > contribution will be well

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM da fetch mode

2019-07-11 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi David, On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:22:44PM +0100, David Carlier wrote: > here a little fix spotted with the fetch mode, thus explicitly set the > output to string type. Now applied, thank you. Willy

Re: Unify equal acl between backends

2019-07-11 Thread Ricardo Fraile
Hello, On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 16:09 +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote: > Hello Ricardo, > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 15:38, Ricardo Fraile > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > I have multiple backends and some of them share the same acl for > > the > > static content, as example: > > > > > > backend

Runaway process

2019-07-11 Thread Sander Klein
Hi, I seem to have runaway HAProxy process since yesterday evening around 20:50. This process is eating up 100% CPU continously. (HAProxy 1.9.8) Of course I can just kill it and go on with my life, but I was wondering if there was any interest to see if we can uncover a bug here. If so,