Re: client keep-alive when servers

Hi Willy, Le 01/02/2013 08:44, Willy Tarreau a écrit : I have some vague memories of someone here reporting this on the tomcat ML, resulting in a fix one or two years ago, but I may confuse with something else. Maybe you should experiment with newer versions ? What you need is just the server

Re: client keep-alive when servers

Hi Cyril, On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 09:07:35AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: Hi Willy, Le 01/02/2013 08:44, Willy Tarreau a écrit : I have some vague memories of someone here reporting this on the tomcat ML, resulting in a fix one or two years ago, but I may confuse with something else. Maybe

Comparison to nginx

Hi I'm looking for some advice in comparing haproxy to nginx. I've been happily using haproxy for all my load balancing needs for the past few years and in my opinion I think its great. I've recently been working to deploy it my latest role but am coming up against resistance from supporters

Re: Comparison to nginx

Hi William, I'm not sure I'd change anything that wasn't causing me pain. If nginx is working nicely then there are probably other things that aren't that are more rewarding of attention. Are there any pain points that you currently have? Maybe haproxy could improve some of those. Thanks,

Re: Comparison to nginx

Hi Steve, Its not a question of replacing nginx with haproxy. The existing solution was dns round robin directly to application servers, that then proxy on to a different node if they didn't hold the required state (which is horrible) I've deployed haproxy in front of this setup but I'm now

Re: Comparison to nginx

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, William Lewis m...@wlewis.co.uk wrote: Hi Steve, Its not a question of replacing nginx with haproxy. The existing solution was dns round robin directly to application servers, that then proxy on to a different node if they didn't hold the required state

Re: Comparison to nginx

I couldn't agree more, but I'm really in need of more concrete reasons for pushing back against this. On Feb 1, 2013, at 12:40 PM, shouldbe q931 shouldbeq...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, William Lewis m...@wlewis.co.uk wrote: Hi Steve, Its not a question of replacing

RE: Comparison to nginx

For example, Nginx doesn't have uri based load-balancing, you need to code it yourself. We have tried to use Nginx as a load-balancer for 10Gbit infra, and we got problems with IOps as it was not splice + max speed of 3Gbit/s on Nginx server, while if you go with HAproxy you get 9.6Gbit/s for

Re: client keep-alive when servers

On 02/01/2013 03:07 AM, Cyril Bonté wrote: Hi Willy, Le 01/02/2013 08:44, Willy Tarreau a écrit : I have some vague memories of someone here reporting this on the tomcat ML, resulting in a fix one or two years ago, but I may confuse with something else. Maybe you should experiment with

Re: Comparison to nginx

How about going the other way and fully commenting the config, sending it to them and asking them how they would implement all of the things that you are using in HAProxy in nginx. If they pass it back to you as that's your job, then you can reasonably ask them that as you have a working solution

Re: HAProxy on multi-CPU Hardware

Search for nbproc in http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.4/doc/configuration.txt, which explains how HaProxy handles multiple CPUs in a box. Chris On 01/02/2013 15:54, Peter Mellquist wrote: Hi! My understanding is that HAProxy is a single process event model which utilizes a single CPU even if

Re: HAProxy on multi-CPU Hardware

Excellent, just what I was looking for! Peter. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Chris Sarginson ch...@sargy.co.uk wrote: Search for nbproc in http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.4/doc/configuration.txt, which explains how HaProxy handles multiple CPUs in a box. Chris On 01/02/2013 15:54,

Re: HAProxy on multi-CPU Hardware

Peter Mellquist 1 February, 2013 12:48 PM Excellent, just what I was looking for!Peter. Just remember that the admin socket will not work as expected with this as it round robins between all the running processes. You would have to size any specific ACLs that deal

Re: HAProxy on multi-CPU Hardware

Thanks for the good input Tait. This would be a code mod but, maybe it would be possible to have different mgmt ports for each process. Maybe baseport+N where N is the process number. I like the IPVS option but keeping it all within HAProxy seems nicer. This definitely gives me some cool stuff

haproxy invoked oom-killer

oom-killer just killed my haproxy instance. Anyone know if there is a way to prioritize haproxy and have it get killed after something else? Or, any tuning that might help. It looked like I had plenty of swap space available when it decided to kill haproxy. Thanks for any advice. Linux

Re: HAProxy on multi-CPU Hardware

Peter Mellquist mailto:pemellqu...@gmail.com 1 February, 2013 4:10 PM Thanks for the good input Tait. This would be a code mod but, maybe it would be possible to have different mgmt ports for each process. Maybe baseport+N where N is the process number. I like the IPVS option but keeping it

Can HAProxy use a response header value to redirect to a different URL?

Hi, I am trying to figure out if a solution I am considering is logically/technically viable, not asking for anyone to do my work :-) We have been using a pair of failover HAProxy servers to both balance load across a number of backends in different data centers, as well as to shape traffic

Re: Comparison to nginx

Hi, The reason is simple: You need a load-balancer. HAProxy is a load-balancer with advanced features: many weighted algorithm, many different persistence type (even using application cookies), advanced reporting, etc... Nginx isn't, despite very basic features, a load-balancer. That said, it can

Re: SSL offloading with NTLM auth

Could you please remove this pretent keepalive option from your configuration and give it a try? HAProxy may close the connection because of it. And yes, a tcpdump between haproxy and the CAS server may help as well. cheers On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Roland r...@bayreuth.tk wrote: Hi