Hi Team,
We use haproxy to front tls for a large number of endpoints, haproxy
prcesses the TLS session and then forwards the request to the backend
application.
What we have noticed is that if there are a large number of connections
from different clients - the CPU usage goes up significantly.
Hi Tait
A few comments inline:
1. Reloading with SRV records ignores server-state-file
> - While this is not a huge deal, it does mean that the backend in
> question becomes unavailable when the proxy is reloaded until the SRV and
> subsequent A records are resolved
>
- I understand that
On 2018/5/31 00:57, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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
Hi Jarno,
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 06:04:10PM +0300, Jarno Huuskonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm testing 1.8.8(1.8.8-52ec357 snapshot) and seamless reloads
> (expose-fd listeners).
>
> I'm testing with this config (missing some default timeouts):
> --8<
> global
>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:35 AM Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Hi Tait.
>
> On 06/06/2018 11:16, Tait Clarridge wrote:
> >I've been testing DNS service discovery and the use of SRV records and
> have
> >a few thoughts on a couple things that I noticed.
>
> In this area was a lot of changes in the
Hi Tait.
On 06/06/2018 11:16, Tait Clarridge wrote:
I've been testing DNS service discovery and the use of SRV records and have
a few thoughts on a couple things that I noticed.
In this area was a lot of changes in the last version of haproxy, do you have
tested the setup with the latest
I've been testing DNS service discovery and the use of SRV records and have
a few thoughts on a couple things that I noticed.
1. Reloading with SRV records ignores server-state-file
- While this is not a huge deal, it does mean that the backend in
question becomes unavailable when the proxy
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:22:22PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> The last patch depended on the first one, so without it that failure is
> expected.
and confirms the benefit of catching such cases at build time :-)
> Thanks a lot for reporting and testing.
>
> Willy, I think you can push
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:06:30AM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/6/6 08:24, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > Hi Willy,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:04:35PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> >>> When building without
On 2018/6/6 08:24, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:04:35PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
>>> When building without threads enabled, instead of just using the global
>>> runqueue, just use the
Hello,
Hope you are doing great.
During our standard search procedure, we came across your website, which is
ranking for some of the most potential keywords (products). But we feel it
is unfortunate that despite having a nicely built and user-friendly
website, yours is still very far from
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:24:29PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, shouldn't we #ifdef out the global runqueue
> > definition when running without threads in order to catch such cases
> > in the future ?
> >
>
> I think this is actually a good idea.
> My only concern is
Hi Willy,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:04:35PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > When building without threads enabled, instead of just using the global
> > runqueue, just use the local runqueue associated with the only thread, as
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 05, Martel, Michael H. wrote:
> We're running HAproxy 1.5.18 on RedHat Enterprise 7.4, as the load balancer
> for our LMS (Moodle). We have found that the course backup feature in Moodle
> will return a 5xx error on some backups. We have determined that the
> "timeout server"
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:04:35PM +0200, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> When building without threads enabled, instead of just using the global
> runqueue, just use the local runqueue associated with the only thread, as
> that's what is now expected for a single thread in prcoess_runnable_tasks().
Hi Patrick,
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:02:41PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote:
> It seems that commit b0bdae7 has completely broken haproxy for me. When
> I send a request to haproxy, it just sits there. The backend server
> receives nothing, and the client waits for a response.
> Running with debug
Hi Milan,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Milan Petruzelka wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> I've tracked one of connections hanging in CLOSE_WAIT state with tcpdump
> over last night. It started at 17:19 like this:
>
> "Packet No.","Time in
>
Hi Willy,
I've tracked one of connections hanging in CLOSE_WAIT state with tcpdump
over last night. It started at 17:19 like this:
"Packet No.","Time in
seconds","Source","Destination","Protocol","Length","Info"
"1","0.00","ip_client","ip_haproxy_server","TCP","62","64311 >
443
18 matches
Mail list logo
