Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:54:28AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:41:18AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Apparently this is reproducible without the master-worker, upon a reload > > > with a local peer, > > > the previous process doesn't leave. > > > > I can now

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:41:18AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Apparently this is reproducible without the master-worker, upon a reload > > with a local peer, > > the previous process doesn't leave. > > I can now reproduce it. It happens that my previous failed tests didn't > trigger it

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 05:08:53PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:56:55PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:22:04PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: > > > ok, i should have something strange because it's easy to reproduce in my > > >

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:56:55PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:22:04PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: > > ok, i should have something strange because it’s easy to reproduce in my > > environnement. > > > > When i look lsof i see on master: > > haproxy 21355 root

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:22:04PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: > ok, i should have something strange because it’s easy to reproduce in my > environnement. > > When i look lsof i see on master: > haproxy 21355 root4u IPv4 39007164 0t0 TCP 10.101.20.4:943 > (LISTEN) > it’s link

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:17:19PM +0100, Frederic Lecaille wrote: > On 11/28/2017 02:13 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 01:43:52PM +0100, Frederic Lecaille wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 01:29 PM, Frederic Lecaille wrote: > > > There is a "/* fall through */" between

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On 11/28/2017 02:13 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 01:43:52PM +0100, Frederic Lecaille wrote: On 11/28/2017 01:29 PM, Frederic Lecaille wrote: There is a "/* fall through */" between PEER_SESS_ST_CONNECT and PEER_SESS_ST_GETSTATUS cases in peer I/O handler code, so with a lock

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 01:43:52PM +0100, Frederic Lecaille wrote: > On 11/28/2017 01:29 PM, Frederic Lecaille wrote: > There is a "/* fall through */" between PEER_SESS_ST_CONNECT and > PEER_SESS_ST_GETSTATUS cases in peer I/O handler code, so with a lock which > may be taken two times ;). >From

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

Hi Willy, > Le 28 nov. 2017 à 07:33, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > Hi Manu, > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 06:21:50PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: >> Hi Willy, >> >>> Le 18 nov. 2017 à 12:28, Willy Tarreau a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Manu, >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

Hi Manu, On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 06:21:50PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: > Hi Willy, > > > Le 18 nov. 2017 à 12:28, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > > > Hi Manu, > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:14:11PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: > >> In master-worker mode with peers, old worker

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

Hi Willy, > Le 18 nov. 2017 à 12:28, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > Hi Manu, > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:14:11PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: >> In master-worker mode with peers, old worker never died after a reload (kill >> -USR2). >> >> Tested without traffic, with/without

Re: [BUG] haproxy 1.8-last/master-worker/peers

Hi Manu, On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:14:11PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote: > In master-worker mode with peers, old worker never died after a reload (kill > -USR2). > > Tested without traffic, with/without threads. > Without peers, no problems. Thanks for the report. I'm currently working on an