On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:06:15PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
>
>
> Am 09-08-2016 17:03, schrieb Lukas Tribus:
> > Am 09.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic:
> > >
> > > > On Linux yes, because there is a race condition:
> > > >
> > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/542866/
> > > >
Hi Baptiste,
As discussed, Please help with inputs on the following.
http://discourse.haproxy.org/t/haproxy-as-server-with-ca-signed-cert-to-fetch-self-signed-client-certificate/551
http://discourse.haproxy.org/t/how-to-fetch-ssl-subjectaltname-san-extension-data-in-haproxy/539
Thanks,
Deepak
Am 09-08-2016 17:03, schrieb Lukas Tribus:
Am 09.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic:
On Linux yes, because there is a race condition:
http://lwn.net/Articles/542866/
http://engineeringblog.yelp.com/2015/04/true-zero-downtime-haproxy-reloads.html
Thanks.
So every Software on Linux
Am 09.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic:
On Linux yes, because there is a race condition:
http://lwn.net/Articles/542866/
http://engineeringblog.yelp.com/2015/04/true-zero-downtime-haproxy-reloads.html
Thanks.
So every Software on Linux should have this issue right?
I'm one of
Hi Lukas.
Am 09-08-2016 16:13, schrieb Lukas Tribus:
Hi Aleksandar,
Am 09.08.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic:
I know it's not the latest one ;-/.
Is there really a possibility that at soft-reload incoming request are
failed?
On Linux yes, because there is a race condition:
Hi Aleksandar,
Am 09.08.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic:
I know it's not the latest one ;-/.
Is there really a possibility that at soft-reload incoming request are
failed?
On Linux yes, because there is a race condition:
http://lwn.net/Articles/542866/
Hi all.
I just seen in the OpenShift repo the following comment.
https://github.com/openshift/origin/blob/master/images/router/haproxy/reload-haproxy#L61-L63
###
# We install the syn eater so that connections that come in during the
restart don't
# go onto the wrong socket, which is then
Hi Ben,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 03:25:04PM +, Ben Shillito wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Yes I agree, this is a problem.
> I have attached a patch with a change to the readme which explains that that
> the correct version must be pulled if using <=1.6.
(...)
+and checkout the latest compatible
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:38:14PM +, James Hartshorn wrote:
> Thank you so much for your investigation!
>
>
> We have been running the patch in high volume testing all day and so far it
> is working fine with no segfaults.
Excellent, thanks James for this pleasant feedback!
Willy
9 matches
Mail list logo