❦ 30 mars 2021 11:21 +02, Thomas SIMON:
> And I confirm you than when rolling back with source compilation and
> 2.3.7 version (can't do this with repository as only last version is
> available) , counters decrements well.
The old debs are still here, so you can still download them manually if
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:31:34PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
> Yes! It works. Sometimes you just need to go home, eat something and look
> again.
Oh I know how it feels, it works the same when emitting releases sometimes...
> It did need a full restart to get it going again though.
You mean "as
On 2021-03-30 19:15, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:07:41PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
On 2021-03-30 18:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> No, my chance is already gone :-)
>
> OK, I'm pushing this one into 2.3, re-running the tests a last time,
> and issuing 2.3.9. We'll be able to is
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:07:41PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
> On 2021-03-30 18:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > No, my chance is already gone :-)
> >
> > OK, I'm pushing this one into 2.3, re-running the tests a last time,
> > and issuing 2.3.9. We'll be able to issue 2.2.12 soon finally, as user
On 2021-03-30 18:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
No, my chance is already gone :-)
OK, I'm pushing this one into 2.3, re-running the tests a last time,
and issuing 2.3.9. We'll be able to issue 2.2.12 soon finally, as users
of 2.2 are still into trouble between 2.2.9 and 2.2.11 depending on the
bug th
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:33:12PM +0200, Thomas SIMON wrote:
> Hi willy,
>
> just to confirm that sticky counter decrement is okay with your patch on
> 2.3.8 version, so no objection for 2.3.9 patching neither :)
Great, thanks for the test. I've just committed the fix and am preparing
2.3.9 now.
Hi willy,
just to confirm that sticky counter decrement is okay with your patch on
2.3.8 version, so no objection for 2.3.9 patching neither :)
thomas
Le 30/03/2021 à 15:47, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
On 2021-03-30 15:13, Willy Tarr
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:15:28PM +0200, William Dauchy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:57 PM Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > out of curiosity I wanted to check when the overflow happened:
> >
> > $ date --date=@$$(date +%s) * 1000) & -0x800) / 1000))
> > Mon Mar 29 23:59:46 CEST 2021
> >
> >
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:57 PM Willy Tarreau wrote:
> out of curiosity I wanted to check when the overflow happened:
>
> $ date --date=@$$(date +%s) * 1000) & -0x800) / 1000))
> Mon Mar 29 23:59:46 CEST 2021
>
> So it only affects processes started since today. I'm quite tempted not
> to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:09:09PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 17:56, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > out of curiosity I wanted to check when the overflow happened:
> >
> > $ date --date=@$$(date +%s) * 1000) & -0x800) / 1000))
> > Mon Mar
Hi Willy,
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 17:56, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> out of curiosity I wanted to check when the overflow happened:
>
> $ date --date=@$$(date +%s) * 1000) & -0x800) / 1000))
> Mon Mar 29 23:59:46 CEST 2021
>
> So it only affects processes started since today. I'm qu
Guys,
out of curiosity I wanted to check when the overflow happened:
$ date --date=@$$(date +%s) * 1000) & -0x800) / 1000))
Mon Mar 29 23:59:46 CEST 2021
So it only affects processes started since today. I'm quite tempted not
to wait further and to emit 2.3.9 urgently to fix this before
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:17:34PM +0200, Sander Klein wrote:
> On 2021-03-30 15:13, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/src/time.c b/src/time.c
> > index 0cfc9bf3c..fafe3720e 100644
> > --- a/src/time.c
> > +++ b/src/time.c
> > @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ void tv_update_date(int max_wait, int interru
On 2021-03-30 15:13, Willy Tarreau wrote:
diff --git a/src/time.c b/src/time.c
index 0cfc9bf3c..fafe3720e 100644
--- a/src/time.c
+++ b/src/time.c
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ void tv_update_date(int max_wait, int interrupted)
old_now_ms = global_now_ms;
do {
new_now_ms =
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> And I've tested using the same method (http_req_rate(2s) and 500ms this
> time to cover both >1s and <1s). So I don't know what to say. I'm now
> extremely tempted to revert all these fixes because in the end the
> original problem wa
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:17:01AM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
>
> this is a known issue in any release train other than 2.3 ...
>
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/1196
>
> However neither 2.3.7 (does not contain the offending commits), nor
> 2.3.8 (contains all the
Hi Lukas,
I'm on 2.3.8 yes
root@web12:~# haproxy -vv
HA-Proxy version 2.3.8-1~bpo10+1 2021/03/25 - https://haproxy.org/
Status: stable branch - will stop receiving fixes around Q1 2022.
Known bugs: http://www.haproxy.org/bugs/bugs-2.3.8.html
Running on: Linux 5.4.78-2-pve #1 SMP PVE 5.4.78-2 (Th
On 2021-03-30 10:17, Lukas Tribus wrote:
Hello Thomas,
this is a known issue in any release train other than 2.3 ...
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/1196
However neither 2.3.7 (does not contain the offending commits), nor
2.3.8 (contains all the fixes) should be affected by this.
Hello Thomas,
this is a known issue in any release train other than 2.3 ...
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/1196
However neither 2.3.7 (does not contain the offending commits), nor
2.3.8 (contains all the fixes) should be affected by this.
Are you absolutely positive that you are ru
Hi all,
Since version 2.3.8, I've noticed problem with come sticky counters,
which only increments, and never decrements. The behavior was OK in 2.3.7
frontend web
bind *:443 ssl crt /etc/ssl/certs/...
http-request track-sc0 src table global_limits
backend global_limits
20 matches
Mail list logo
