2013/7/22 Willy Tarreau
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:56:26PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> > On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >Hi Godbach,
> > >
> > >I carefully checked and for me we can set SRV_UWGHT_MAX to
> SRV_UWGHT_RANGE.
> > >It will have the effect of limiting the maximum number of
2013/7/21 Godbach
> On 2013-7-21 21:17, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
>> No, I really mean UWGHT_MAX set to UWGHT_RANGE since it is used to
>> fix set highest user weight that can be set.
>>
>> Willy
>>
>>
>>
> Yeah, I get what you meant now. With the following fix:
>
> diff --git a/include/types/server
Hi Godbach,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:25:44AM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> Hi Willy,
> I have merged all four patches into a single one according to your
> suggestion. If you have not megered them yet, the new patch can be usefull
> and please do any change in case that anything necessary.
Perfec
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:56:26PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Hi Godbach,
> >
> >I carefully checked and for me we can set SRV_UWGHT_MAX to SRV_UWGHT_RANGE.
> >It will have the effect of limiting the maximum number of servers a full
> >weight to 4095 instead
On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Godbach,
I carefully checked and for me we can set SRV_UWGHT_MAX to SRV_UWGHT_RANGE.
It will have the effect of limiting the maximum number of servers a full
weight to 4095 instead of 4128 (so please update the doc for this). It is
also used in the lea
On 2013-7-21 21:17, Willy Tarreau wrote:
No, I really mean UWGHT_MAX set to UWGHT_RANGE since it is used to
fix set highest user weight that can be set.
Willy
Yeah, I get what you meant now. With the following fix:
diff --git a/include/types/server.h b/include/types/server.h
index b58a062..
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 06:28:00PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> On 2013-7-21 18:16, Godbach wrote:
> > On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> Hi Godbach,
> >>
> >> That's quite a good analysis. I'm realizing that durnig the development
> >> of the algorithm, the maximum weight was 255, and it was
On 2013-7-21 18:16, Godbach wrote:
> On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi Godbach,
>>
>> That's quite a good analysis. I'm realizing that durnig the development
>> of the algorithm, the maximum weight was 255, and it was later
>> changed to
>> 256. The test code that was used for this is
On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Godbach,
That's quite a good analysis. I'm realizing that durnig the development
of the algorithm, the maximum weight was 255, and it was later changed to
256. The test code that was used for this is still in tests/filltab25.c if
you're curious. It dis
Hi Godbach,
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 06:45:14PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> I have done a test for haproxy on latest snapshot which has two servers
> with such key configuration
> lb algo is roundrobin
> server A: weight 128
> server B: weight 256
>
> I sent 9 requests and the order for
Hi Willy,
I have done a test for haproxy on latest snapshot which has two servers
with such key configuration
lb algo is roundrobin
server A: weight 128
server B: weight 256
I sent 9 requests and the order for getting responses from server is
expected as:
BBABBABBA
But I got the unexpected order
11 matches
Mail list logo
