Hi Patrick,
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:16:27AM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> > I looked at the code to see if something could cause that. I found that the
> > key increment could be a reason (you must restart from the next element,
> > not an upper value since there will be many duplicate keys)
On 2018/5/30 04:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I'm finally back on this.
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:05:03AM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>> On 2018/5/11 12:52, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>>> This adds the set-priority-class and set-priority-offset actions to
>>> http-request and
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 07:57:03PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> William,
>
> Am 30.05.2018 um 19:45 schrieb William Lallemand:
> >> @William Lallemand Possibly the sd_notifyf should be moved below
> >> mworker_unblock_signals in mworker_wait?
> >>
> >
> > This shouldn't happen with or without
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:29 PM, William Lallemand
wrote:
> I can reproduce the same situation there, however I disabled the seamless
> reload. When doing a -USR1 & strace on an remaining worker, I can see that the
> the signal is not blocked, and that it's still polling
good news!
>
William,
Am 30.05.2018 um 19:45 schrieb William Lallemand:
>> @William Lallemand Possibly the sd_notifyf should be moved below
>> mworker_unblock_signals in mworker_wait?
>>
>
> This shouldn't happen with or without systemd. I can reproduce it without
> using systemd, we should not rely on an
Hi Tim,
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 09:33:48PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>
> @William Lallemand Possibly the sd_notifyf should be moved below
> mworker_unblock_signals in mworker_wait?
>
This shouldn't happen with or without systemd. I can reproduce it without
using systemd, we should not rely
Hello,
On 22 May 2018 at 15:26, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hello Emeric,
>
>
> On 22 May 2018 at 14:44, Emeric Brun wrote:
>> Hi Lukas,
>>
>> I've just made some tests using openssl-1.1.1-pre6 and can't reproduce the
>> issue.
>>
>> here my simple configuration:
>> frontend my
>> mode http
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 04:47:31PM +0200, William Dauchy wrote:
> Hello William L.,
>
Hi William D. :-)
> I did some more testing:
> I simplified my config, removing the multi binding part and cpu-map.
> Conclusion is, I have this issue when I activate nbthread feature
> (meaning no probkem
Hello William L.,
I did some more testing:
I simplified my config, removing the multi binding part and cpu-map.
Conclusion is, I have this issue when I activate nbthread feature
(meaning no probkem without).
I tried to kill -USR1 the failing worker, but it remains.
Here are the Sig* from status
Le 24/05/2018 à 10:28, Максим Куприянов a écrit :
Could you tell if these patches will be backported to haproxy 1.8 or not?
Hi,
Sorry for the lag. Well, we are pretty busy these days. And this subject
is unfortunately still in our todo-list. We definitely need to have a
way to wake up
Hi,
I am facing one issue while compiling haproxy-1.8.9 with 51Degrees
Device-Detection module.
When i start haproxy i am getting this error.
[ALERT] 149/144015 (22611) : 51Degrees Setup - Error reading 51Degrees data
file. Allocated continuous memory containing 51Degrees data file appears to
Hi,
I am facing one issue while compiling haproxy-1.8.9 with 51Degrees
Device-Detection module.
When i start haproxy i am getting this error.
[ALERT] 149/144015 (22611) : 51Degrees Setup - Error reading 51Degrees data
file. Allocated continuous memory containing 51Degrees data file appears to
be
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:00:24AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I noticed a strange effect which is that when injecting under low load with
> a higher priority (either offset or class) than another high level traffic,
> the response time on the higher priority traffic follows a sawtooth shape,
>
Hi Patrick,
I'm finally back on this.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:05:03AM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> On 2018/5/11 12:52, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> > This adds the set-priority-class and set-priority-offset actions to
> > http-request and tcp-request content.
> > The priority values are used
On 30/05/2018 05:20, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:48:57PM -0600, Ben Draut wrote:
[snipp]
No problem, thanks for reviewing! Hopefully you guys get a break soon. Les
vacances se rapprochent.. :)
Holidays are the moment where it's easier to stay focused on complex
stuff
15 matches
Mail list logo