Hi Andy,
Also, I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but the two times
I was able to reproduce this today (yes, two times... the first
time, Wireshark crashed *sigh*), the connections/requests were
HTTP over SSL.
For the record: are you using HAproxy SSL functionality or do you
use
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 07:54:00PM +0700, Denis Malyshkin wrote:
Hi Willy,
Thank you a lot for your help.
Alternately, you can use the source parameter either on each server
or in the backend to fix a port range. Haproxy will then use an explicit
bind. This is normally used when you want
Lukas,
For the record: are you using HAproxy SSL functionality or do you
use something else, like stunnel or stud in front of haproxy? That
would make a big difference.
We're terminating the SSL connections in haproxy, itself -- no stunnel or
stud.
Also, with what IE release on which
Hi Andy,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:50:50AM -0600, Andy Walker wrote:
I also thought I'd include this for posterity -- it was some out-of-band
communication with Willy, which I hope he doesn't mind me including.
no problem.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
OK thanks.
Hi,
There wasn't a request made prior to it sending that 408, so
something seems a bit fishy there, too. I could be completely missing
something, though.
It's *exactly* the purpose of 408 : indicate to the client that we're
fed up with waiting for it to send a request (hence the request
Hi Lukas,
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 06:04:37PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26#section-6.5.7
Admittedly though the original specification does leave more room for
interpretation than the updated one:
*From: *Sok Ann Yap sok...@gmail.com
*Sent: * 2014-02-21 05:11:48 E
*To: *haproxy@formilux.org
*Subject: *Re: Just a simple thought on health checks after a soft
reload of HAProxy
Patrick Hemmer haproxy@... writes:
7 matches
Mail list logo
