Hi Igor,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 07:39:02PM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> Any chance for this to get back-ported into 1.5?
Not at all. We don't backport features anymore into stable releases,
we've had to deal with too many painful issues in 1.4 because of this
bad practise. This appear to work
Hi all,
I have the following entry in a stick-table:
0x87bf54: key=09643F891F0C6F7BE467E619952E327E use=0 exp=1938168 server_id=1
and on the peer after doing a restart:
0x806934: key=09643F891F0C6F7BE467E619952E327E use=0 exp=4795722 server_id=1
can see the same entry with different
Hi,
Sometimes I find i am left with zombie haproxy instances that are *still
listening* and do *not* have any established connections (netstat told me
so), even though those particular pids have been told to die.
I.e.
141 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/sbin/haproxy -D -f /proxy.conf -p /proxy.pid
On 01/02/2016 8:32 AM, "Willy Tarreau" wrote:
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 07:39:02PM +1100, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> > Any chance for this to get back-ported into 1.5?
>
> Not at all. We don't backport features anymore into stable releases,
> we've had to deal with too many
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 04:09:43PM +0100, Nenad Merdanovic wrote:
> In a decent;y sized environment getting several tens of millions
> requests per day, statistics I gathered show that there is about 85-88%
> of clients that support ECDSA. Using that and TLS keys, switching to
> full HTTPS was
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 08:30:57AM +0100, Björn Zettergren wrote:
> > > http-response redirect code 302 location https://blabla if { status
> 404 }
> > > statement in my haproxy 1.5.15 config but on reload I get:
> >
> > If i
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 08:30:57AM +0100, Björn Zettergren wrote:
> > http-response redirect code 302 location https://blabla if { status 404 }
> > statement in my haproxy 1.5.15 config but on reload I get:
>
> If i make proper sense of the documentation; the "http-response" does
> not support
Hi,
Wonder if the mailers can support smtp authentication?
Thanks,
Igor
Thanks Willy.
We also see very bad performance with HW acceleration (but better than what you
said).
We attribute it to the fact that we can launch only 1 operation at a time in
synchronous manner coupled with the high latency of getting data in and out of
the VMs.
That is why we hope to
11 matches
Mail list logo