Hi Willy,
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013, 00:35:11 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
attached patch this time.
thx. I have one question: will you issue a quick -dev19 release, or
should be track the various patches you've pushed in the meantime?
TIA, cheers.
l8er
manfred
This thread is about a bug which is already fixed in dev18.
The only bug fixed after dev18 is the issue from the
haproxy-dev18 http-request thread.
If you need a .tar.gz with all bugfixes, I suggest you use a snapshot
from [1]. They are build every night if something changed in the git,
so you
Hi Lukas,
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013, 14:08:49 +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
This thread is about a bug which is already fixed in dev18.
thx, of course I ignored the ss- part in the subject... sorry.
The only bug fixed after dev18 is the issue from the
haproxy-dev18 http-request thread.
If you
Hi!,
On 02.04.2013 16:16, Sander Klein wrote:
When using this config with ss-20130402 I do not get any traffic to
cluster1-2. I didn't have enough time to do a proper debug since I was
doing it in production ;-) I might have a better look at it this
evening. It works fine with ss-20130125.
Replying to myself again...
On 02.04.2013 16:59, Sander Klein wrote:
Hi!,
On 02.04.2013 16:16, Sander Klein wrote:
When using this config with ss-20130402 I do not get any traffic to
cluster1-2. I didn't have enough time to do a proper debug since I
was
doing it in production ;-) I might
Hi,
On 02.04.2013 20:49, Sander Klein wrote:
Replying to myself again...
On 02.04.2013 16:59, Sander Klein wrote:
Hi!,
On 02.04.2013 16:16, Sander Klein wrote:
When using this config with ss-20130402 I do not get any traffic to
cluster1-2. I didn't have enough time to do a proper debug
Hi Thomas,
On 02.04.2013 21:02, Thomas Heil wrote:
Of course, it matters. As you explained the problem should be arround
patch 86 up to 101. How does you haproxy -vv
look like? Do you use compression or SSL? Could you eliminate Patch
91,92 and 98?
haproxy -vv looks like:
sander@lb01-a:~$
that leaves 87,88,89,93,94,95,96,99,100 and 101, right?
git-bisect is your friend :)
That said, I see some hangs after commit a890d072, but thats
patch 104 and not in ss-20130402, so its a separate issue
(I will post a new topic about this).
Willy, I would rather not issue dev-18 now ;)
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:16:14PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
that leaves 87,88,89,93,94,95,96,99,100 and 101, right?
git-bisect is your friend :)
That said, I see some hangs after commit a890d072, but thats
patch 104 and not in ss-20130402, so its a separate issue
(I will post a new
Hi Sander,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 09:37:07PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 02.04.2013 21:02, Thomas Heil wrote:
Of course, it matters. As you explained the problem should be arround
patch 86 up to 101. How does you haproxy -vv
look like? Do you use compression or SSL? Could
Hi Sander,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:35:45PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Sounds like I broke the response forward state machine last evening
then (the last 3 patches that went into 20130402), because all other
patches are just cosmetic. I'm re-auditing the code now.
OK I could reproduce
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:11:35AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Sander,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:35:45PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Sounds like I broke the response forward state machine last evening
then (the last 3 patches that went into 20130402), because all other
patches are
attached patch this time.
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:32:14AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:11:35AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Sander,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 11:35:45PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Sounds like I broke the response forward state machine last
13 matches
Mail list logo
