Maksim,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 07:53:08AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Maksim,
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:39:23AM +0300, ?? ? wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > It seems to me there is something wrong with this patch: for some reason
> > process stops responding with 100% CPU used by
Hi Maksim,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:39:23AM +0300, ?? ? wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It seems to me there is something wrong with this patch: for some reason
> process stops responding with 100% CPU used by all threads.
Ouch! This looks like an awful AB/BA deadlock. Indeed,
Hi!
It seems to me there is something wrong with this patch: for some reason
process stops responding with 100% CPU used by all threads.
Backtrace:
(gdb) thread apply all bt
Thread 4 (Thread 0x7fdf68c9c700 (LWP 615744)):
#0 0x564fc9a61990 in fwrr_update_server_weight (srv=0x564fcb5014b0) at
Hi Maksim,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 07:28:28AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > So I agree upon another thread activity. The unique thing about
> > these servers - all of them use haproxy-agent to set up weights of their
> > backends. Other instances with no haproxy-agent in their configs don't
> >
Hi Maksim,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 08:15:42AM +0300, ?? ? wrote:
> Hi Willy!
>
> Actually I don't think this is a CPU fault. The reason is that I have same
> cores with non-zero dividers on 4 more hardware servers with different CPU
> models.
OK that's very useful info, thank you.
Hi Willy!
Actually I don't think this is a CPU fault. The reason is that I have same
cores with non-zero dividers on 4 more hardware servers with different CPU
models. So I agree upon another thread activity. The unique thing about
these servers – all of them use haproxy-agent to set up weights
Hi Maksim,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:03:43PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I tried to follow all paths that lead to a zero cur_eweight that I could
> find and none of them leave the server in the tree. Then I tried to find
> all cases where this entry is updated or used and all are under the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 09:37:41PM +0500, ?? ? wrote:
> Hello Willy!
>
> I hope i could find some cores still available and will search for them
> tomorrow.
Cool!
> But since they could contain some sensitive information, its not a good
> idea to share it right here on the mail
Hello Willy!
I hope i could find some cores still available and will search for them
tomorrow.
But since they could contain some sensitive information, its not a good
idea to share it right here on the mail list.
So could you please tell me some personal email address where I could send
the link
Hi again,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:53:28AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Got multiple incidents of failure with 1.9.6:
> > Core was generated by `/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p
> > /var/run/haproxy'.
> > Program terminated with signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
> > #0
Hi Maxim,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:22:59PM +0300, ?? ? wrote:
> Hi, everybody!
>
> Got multiple incidents of failure with 1.9.6:
> Core was generated by `/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p
> /var/run/haproxy'.
> Program terminated with signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic
Hi!
Any news about the reason of these faults? I can mention, that some of our
backends set their weights with the help of haproxy agent. Could it be the
reason?
чт, 4 апр. 2019 г. в 14:22, Максим Куприянов :
> Hi, everybody!
>
> Got multiple incidents of failure with 1.9.6:
> Core was
12 matches
Mail list logo
