Hi, Lukas!
I didn’t attach dump of haproxy to backend servers packets because there
were no such packets in this particular case. :( this haproxy installation
is heavy loaded with traffic. So it could be the reason haproxy even didn’t
start connecting to a backend in time. If I add some small
Dear Colleagues,
The dynamic limit is probably one of the darker sides of Haproxy
configuration. One of the best explanations I've found is
https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg04782.html
but still I'm missing some points.
Consider the following configuration:
Hello Christopher,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:53 PM William Dauchy wrote:
> Since commit 3169471964fdc49963e63f68c1fd88686821a0c4 ("MINOR: Add
> server port field to server state file.") max_fields was not increased
> on version number 1. So this patch aims to fix it. This should be
> backported
Even if it is possibly too much work for the current usage, it makes
sure we don't break states file from v2.3 to v2.4; indeed, since v2.3,
we introduced two new fields, so we put them aside to guarantee we can
easily reload from a version 1.
The diff seems huge but there is no specific change
logical followup from cli commands addition, so that the state server
file stays compatible with the changes made at runtime; use previously
added helper to load server attributes.
also alloc a specific chunk to avoid mixing with other called functions
using it
Signed-off-by: William Dauchy
---
a space was missing in the output to make it more readable.
Signed-off-by: William Dauchy
---
src/server.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/server.c b/src/server.c
index 6b360291d..673844dd7 100644
--- a/src/server.c
+++ b/src/server.c
@@ -3015,7 +3015,7
Since commit 3169471964fdc49963e63f68c1fd88686821a0c4 ("MINOR: Add
server port field to server state file.") max_fields was not increased
on version number 1. So this patch aims to fix it. This should be
backported as far as v1.8, but the numbering should be adpated depending
on the version:
this patch allows to set agent port at runtime. In order to align with
both `addr` and `check-addr` commands, also add the possibility to
optionnaly set port on `agent-addr` command. This led to a small
refactor in order to use the same function for both `agent-addr` and
`agent-port` commands.
this patch allows to set server health check address at runtime. In
order to align with `addr` command, also allow to set port optionnaly.
This led to a small refactor in order to use the same function for both
`check-addr` and `check-port` commands.
for `check-port`, we however don't permit the
Since commit 3169471964fdc49963e63f68c1fd88686821a0c4 ("MINOR: Add
server port field to server state file.") max_fields was not increased
on version number 1. So this patch aims to fix it. This should be
backported as far as v1.8, but the numbering should be adpated depending
on the version:
Hello Christopher,
Here is the v2 addressing the points raised yesterday.
The patch 4/6 clearly looks scary but I made sure to not change anything
crazy apart from adding support for a version 2. I will probably start
to dream about a server-state-file burning every night.
I hope this will be
Hello,
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 18:14, Максим Куприянов
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I faced a problem dealing with l4 (tcp mode) haproxy-based proxy over
> Graphite's component receiving metrics from clients and clients who are
> connecting just to send one or two Graphite-metrics and disconnecting right
I have to go to sleep :)
for unknown reason I thought that you are out ot ephemeral ports due to
rapid connection reopen (aka ephemeral ports exhaustion).
вт, 9 февр. 2021 г. в 01:04, Максим Куприянов :
> Илья, thanks for your answer!
>
> Sorry, but It seems to me I didn't make it clear: the
Илья, thanks for your answer!
Sorry, but It seems to me I didn't make it clear: the problem is the data
received from these fast clients never reaches backends. But it should be
delivered in order to be saved.
Maybe there is some way to delay acknowledging of the data received until
some backend
I think it is "4. Client disconnects (FIN, FIN-ACK)"
if client would send RST instead of FIN, port would have been released
immediately.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13049828/fin-vs-rst-in-tcp-connections
RST is much better for short living connections.
пн, 8 февр. 2021 г. в 22:17,
Hi!
I faced a problem dealing with l4 (tcp mode) haproxy-based proxy over
Graphite's component receiving metrics from clients and clients who are
connecting just to send one or two Graphite-metrics and disconnecting right
after.
It looks like this
1. Client connects to haproxy (SYN/SYN-ACK/ACK)
Hi there,
I don't think I've heard back from you yet - should I send those article ideas
your way?
Have a great start to the week!
Best,
David
Hi William!
On Mon, Feb 08 2021 15:49:02 +0100, William Lallemand wrote:
> Thanks to Rémi development we already have the server crt update
> available from the CLI in the 2.4 tree.
Wow, this prove that I didn't follow that much what's currently happening...
Awesome, thanks!
> I'm not sure why
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 02:31:18PM +, Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out what would be missing to consider server crt-s as
> crt-lists (as in bind lines) so that they could be listed via "show ssl
> crt-list" APIs and also managed (essentially renewed) this way.
>
> Exemple:
Le 08/02/2021 à 15:03, Christian Ruppert a écrit :
On 2021-02-08 14:46, Christopher Faulet wrote:
Le 08/02/2021 à 14:31, Christian Ruppert a écrit :
Hi list, Christopher,
we're having issues with the mentioned commit / patch:
d13afbcce5e664f9cfe797eee8c527e5fa947f1b
I'm trying to figure out what would be missing to consider server crt-s as
crt-lists (as in bind lines) so that they could be listed via "show ssl
crt-list" APIs and also managed (essentially renewed) this way.
Exemple:
backend foo-using-client-auth
default-server check ssl crt
On 2021-02-08 14:46, Christopher Faulet wrote:
Le 08/02/2021 à 14:31, Christian Ruppert a écrit :
Hi list, Christopher,
we're having issues with the mentioned commit / patch:
d13afbcce5e664f9cfe797eee8c527e5fa947f1b
Le 08/02/2021 à 14:31, Christian Ruppert a écrit :
Hi list, Christopher,
we're having issues with the mentioned commit / patch:
d13afbcce5e664f9cfe797eee8c527e5fa947f1b
https://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy-2.2.git;a=commit;h=d13afbcce5e664f9cfe797eee8c527e5fa947f1b
I can also reproduce it with
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:17:32PM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote:
> usually I do such a stupid mistakes on friday.
> I wonder about next friday :(
>
> new patch attached.
>
> Ilya
>
Don't worry it happens to me quite a lot :-)
Applied, thanks.
--
William Lallemand
Hi Christopher,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:21 PM Christopher Faulet wrote:
> First, there is a test to be sure the agent-check is enabled before updating
> the
> agent address and/or port. Do you think it should also be done for the
> health-check? Because, for now, it is possible to set an
Hi list, Christopher,
we're having issues with the mentioned commit / patch:
d13afbcce5e664f9cfe797eee8c527e5fa947f1b
https://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy-2.2.git;a=commit;h=d13afbcce5e664f9cfe797eee8c527e5fa947f1b
I can also reproduce it with 2.2.9 as well as 2.3.5. I don't have any
useful
usually I do such a stupid mistakes on friday.
I wonder about next friday :(
new patch attached.
Ilya
пн, 8 февр. 2021 г. в 17:08, William Lallemand :
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:03:43PM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote:
> > I've added commit message.
> >
> > Ilya
> >
>
> > From
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:03:43PM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote:
> I've added commit message.
>
> Ilya
>
> From f39f9f69e29570fa43d7db5a0f08ee9395b98d50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ilya Shipitsin
> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 00:50:59 +0500
> Subject: [PATCH] BUILD: ssl: guard
I've added commit message.
Ilya
сб, 23 янв. 2021 г. в 21:46, William Lallemand :
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 02:06:41AM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > another ssl guard patch
> >
> > Ilya
>
> > From f39f9f69e29570fa43d7db5a0f08ee9395b98d50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >
Le 06/02/2021 à 20:47, William Dauchy a écrit :
Hello,
This is a followup from last week cleaning regarding check and agent
check. This patch series brings some more coherency on the CLI side. I
also put some minor cleaning.
William Dauchy (6):
CLEANUP: check: fix some typo in comments
Le 07/02/2021 à 20:42, William Dauchy a écrit :
Remove remaining descrition which are common to stats.c.
This patch is a followup of commit
82b2ce2f967d967139adb7afab064416fadad615 ("MINOR:
contrib/prometheus-exporter: use stats desc when possible"). I probably
messed up with one of my rebase
Le 06/02/2021 à 18:30, Илья Шипицин a écrit :
Hello,
another cleanup.
Now merged. Thanks !
--
Christopher Faulet
32 matches
Mail list logo
