Perfect! Thanks Tim. So many options in the HAProxy configuration sometimes I
get lost in it.
> On May 23, 2019, at 12:09 PM, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Am 23.05.19 um 20:17 schrieb Paul Lockaby:
>> If there is a way that I can direct a request to a specific server in a
>> backend
Paul,
Am 23.05.19 um 20:17 schrieb Paul Lockaby:
> If there is a way that I can direct a request to a specific server in a
> backend rather than duplicating backends with different server lists that
> would be ideal. Is that possible?
I believe you are searching for use-server:
Hello!
I have a frontend/backend that looks kind of like below, obviously very
simplified.
frontend myhost-frontend
bind *:443 ssl crt /usr/local/ssl/certs/host.pem
mode http
log global
acl request_monitor_cluster path_beg /monitor/cluster
use_backend monitor_cluster if
Hi Eduardo,
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:09:55AM -0300, Eduardo Doria Lima wrote:
> Hi Aleks,
>
> I don't understand what you means with "local host". But could be nice if
> new process get data of old process.
That's exatly the principle. A peers section contains a number of peers,
including the
Hi Aleks,
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:12:48PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> We had a interesting discussion on Kubeconf how a session table in peer's can
> survive a restart of a haproxy instance.
>
> We came to a request for enhancement (RFE) to be able to add a peer server,
> not a peer
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:35:43PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> we can definetly cache "git clone" for BoringSSL, I'll send patch.
OK!
> as for "build cache", it might be not that trivial.
No problem, I'm only suggesting. What matters the most to me is that
it works fine and causes little false
чт, 23 мая 2019 г. в 18:45, Willy Tarreau :
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 04:17:33PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> > I'd like to run sanitizers on vaious combinations, like ZLIB / SLZ, PCRE
> /
> > PCRE2 ...
> > ok, let us do it before Wednesday
>
> OK, why not. Feel free to send patches once you can
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 04:17:33PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> I'd like to run sanitizers on vaious combinations, like ZLIB / SLZ, PCRE /
> PCRE2 ...
> ok, let us do it before Wednesday
OK, why not. Feel free to send patches once you can test them. Please
make sure not to unreasonably increase
Hi Aleks,
I don't understand what you means with "local host". But could be nice if
new process get data of old process.
As I said to João Morais, we "solve" this problem adding a sidecar HAProxy
(another container in same pod) only to store the sticky-table of main
HAProxy. In my opinion it's a
Hi,
On Wed, May 22, Brent Clark wrote:
> 2019-05-22 12:23:15 SMTP protocol synchronization error (input sent
> without waiting for greeting): rejected connection from
> H=smtpgatewayserver [IP_OF_LB_SERVER] input="PROXY TCP4 $MY_IP
> $IP_OF_LB_SERVER 39156 587\r\n"
Seems like proxy protocol is
Hi Eduardo.
Thu May 23 14:30:46 GMT+02:00 2019 Eduardo Doria Lima :
> HI Aleks,
> "First why do you restart all haproxies at the same time and don't use
> rolling updates ?"
> We restarts all HAProxys at the same time because they watch Kubernetes API.
> The ingress (
HI Aleks,
"First why do you restart all haproxies at the same time and don't use
rolling updates ?"
We restarts all HAProxys at the same time because they watch Kubernetes
API. The ingress (https://github.com/jcmoraisjr/haproxy-ingress) do this
automatic. I was talking with ingress creator João
чт, 23 мая 2019 г. в 01:28, Willy Tarreau :
> Hi,
>
> HAProxy 2.0-dev4 was released on 2019/05/22. It added 83 new commits
> after version 2.0-dev3.
>
> This release completes the integration of a few pending features and
> the ongoing necessary cleanups before 2.0.
>
> A few bugs were addressed
Hi.
We had a interesting discussion on Kubeconf how a session table in peer's can
survive a restart of a haproxy instance.
We came to a request for enhancement (RFE) to be able to add a peer server, not
a peer section, to a existing peers section, similar to add server for backend.
Opinions?
чт, 23 мая 2019 г. в 14:03, Willy Tarreau :
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 07:15:21PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:24:25PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > someone is reviewing this
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/runs/133866993
> > > ?
> >
> > So
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 07:15:21PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:24:25PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > someone is reviewing this https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/runs/133866993
> > ?
>
> So apparently we don't have _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 199309L there,
Hi Maksim,
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:00:19AM +0300, ?? ? wrote:
> 2nd session (from haproxy to ssl-enabled backend A, dumped with tshark for
> better readability):
> 1 09:10:48.222518 HAPROXY -> BACKEND_A TCP 94 36568 -> 9790 [SYN] Seq=0
> Win=26520 Len=0 MSS=8840 SACK_PERM=1
Hi, Willy!
This kind of errors only happen on proxy-sections with ssl-enabled backends
('ssl verify none' in server lines).
In order to find out what realy happens from network point of view I added
one plain-http backend to one of the proxy-sections.
Then I captured the sutuation when request
Hi Aleks,
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 08:05:18AM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> From my point of view is the ci and issue tacker a good step forward but for
> now we should try to focus on the list as it is still the main communication
> channel.
I mean, there are multiple valid communication
Hi.
Wed May 22 23:41:13 GMT+02:00 2019 Willy Tarreau :
> Hi Ilya,
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:29:53AM +0500, ??? wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > if we do not like using github PR and Willy receives 2k emails a day...
> > do we consider using something like that
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo
