Many thanks!
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:50:35PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
>> Ah, thanks - I hadn't thought about the case where connections were
>> queued up. In my tests, I had a very low queue timeout. The code you
>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:50:35PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
> Ah, thanks - I hadn't thought about the case where connections were
> queued up. In my tests, I had a very low queue timeout. The code you
> suggested seems to do the trick. Updated patch below.
Applied, thanks. I fixed a minor
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks. Normally you also need to try to dequeue pending connections
> when changing the value, because if you increase the limit, you need
> to open the door for new connections. After changing the value, you
>
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:23:39PM -0500, Andrew Hayworth wrote:
> In another thread "Dynamically change server maxconn possible?",
> someone raised the possibility of setting a per-server maxconn via the
> stats socket. I believe the below patch implements this functionality.
>
> I'd
Apologies for two posts in a row: this version of the patch includes a
blurb for doc/management.txt as well.
- Andrew Hayworth
>From 6c54812a06706460dd2944ce7d51ea29636ed989 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Hayworth
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:15:56 +
5 matches
Mail list logo