Many thanks!
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:50:35PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
>> Ah, thanks - I hadn't thought about the case where connections were
>> queued up. In my tests, I had a very low queue timeout. The code you
>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:50:35PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
> Ah, thanks - I hadn't thought about the case where connections were
> queued up. In my tests, I had a very low queue timeout. The code you
> suggested seems to do the trick. Updated patch below.
Applied, thanks. I fixed a minor
up. In my tests, I had a very low queue timeout. The code you
suggested seems to do the trick. Updated patch below.
--
- Andrew Hayworth
>From 0bad55c2cdd6d4086c11cd445de309693ec72afa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Hayworth <andrew.haywo...@getbraintree.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:46
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:23:39PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
> In another thread "Dynamically change server maxconn possible?",
> someone raised the possibility of setting a per-server maxconn via the
> stats socket. I believe the below patch implements this functionality.
>
> I'd
00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Hayworth <andrew.haywo...@getbraintree.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:15:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] MINOR: cli: ability to set per-server maxconn
This commit adds support for setting a per-server maxconn from the stats
socket. The only really notable part of this com
:56 +
Subject: [PATCH] MINOR: cli: ability to set per-server maxconn
This commit adds support for setting a per-server maxconn from the stats
socket. The only really notable part of this commit is that we need to
check if maxconn == minconn before changing things, as this indicates
that we are
6 matches
Mail list logo