On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:07:41AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Hi Willy, Hi Dmitry,
>
> Am 19.03.2017 um 12:40 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > And here come two patches as a replacement for this temporary one. They
> > are safer and have been done after throrough code review. I spotted a
> > small
Hi Willy, Hi Dmitry,
Am 19.03.2017 um 12:40 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> And here come two patches as a replacement for this temporary one. They
> are safer and have been done after throrough code review. I spotted a
> small tens of dirty corner cases having accumulated over the years due
> to the unc
> On 19 Mar 2017, at 14:40, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 01:12:09PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> OK here's a temporary patch. It includes a revert of the previous one and
>> adds a condition for the wake-up. At least it passes all my tests, including
>> those invol
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 01:12:09PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> OK here's a temporary patch. It includes a revert of the previous one and
> adds a condition for the wake-up. At least it passes all my tests, including
> those involving synchronous connection reports.
>
> I'm not merging it ye
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:10:43PM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
>
> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 12:04, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:45:54AM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
> >> I committed your patch to FreeBSD ports.
> >
> > I was just reported an und
On 17/03/2017 05:57 μμ, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Willy.
>
> Am 14-03-2017 22:17, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
>> Matthias,
>>
>> I could finally track the problem down to a 5-year old bug in the
>> connection handler. It already used to affect Unix sockets but it
>> requires so rare a set of options an
Hi Aleks,
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 05:57:02PM +0100, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> I love your commit massages ;-).
>
> They are very detailed and sometimes bigger the the code change.
That's expected, especially on a bug. The code is the result of a
long analysis. If this analysis is lost, next time
Willy.
Am 14-03-2017 22:17, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Matthias,
I could finally track the problem down to a 5-year old bug in the
connection handler. It already used to affect Unix sockets but it
requires so rare a set of options and even then its occurrence rate
is so low that probably nobody not
Dear Willy and Dmitry,
Am 14.03.17 um 22:17 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Or you may prefer to wait for 1.7.4. It's not planned yet given that
there are other fixes in the wild waiting for some feedback though.
Thanks guys for the detailed feedback, it's now time to turn the page
and switch to less di
> On 17 Mar 2017, at 12:04, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:45:54AM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
>> I committed your patch to FreeBSD ports.
>
> I was just reported an undesired side effect of this patch with smtp
> in clear without proxy-proto :-(
>
> [.
Hi Dmitry,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:45:54AM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
> I committed your patch to FreeBSD ports.
I was just reported an undesired side effect of this patch with smtp
in clear without proxy-proto :-(
The problem is that we're using the CONNECTED flag to indicate whether
we
> On 15 Mar 2017, at 00:17, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Matthias,
>
> I could finally track the problem down to a 5-year old bug in the
> connection handler. It already used to affect Unix sockets but it
> requires so rare a set of options and even then its occurrence rate
> is so low that probabl
Matthias,
I could finally track the problem down to a 5-year old bug in the
connection handler. It already used to affect Unix sockets but it
requires so rare a set of options and even then its occurrence rate
is so low that probably nobody noticed it yet.
I'm attaching the patch to be applied on
Hi Matthias,
I do have some good news. I could reproduce your issue on a FreeBSD
machine (thanks Olivier!). This issue isn't FreeBSD specific, it's a
bug in haproxy. It just happens that FreeBSD *sometimes* manages to
get connect() to immediately succeed over the loopback, that you're
indeed conne
Hi Willy,
Am 12.03.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> You're welcome. It's possible that I'll ask you to test a patch or two
> if I find anything suspicious, given that for now you're the first one
> to observe this issue.
sure, but next week I will not be able to test anything, so take your
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:44:09AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> maybe the patch command from FreeBSD is different, I do not get your
> patch applying correctly.
> I always start from a clean build dir version 1.7.3.
Very strange. That's good to know at least.
> But Dmitry already created an u
Hi Willy, Hi Dmitry,
Am 12.03.2017 um 09:48 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Yep, that totally makes sense. Thanks for checking. Please find in
> attachment one which does properly apply here with -Rp1 (at least it
> will allow you to fix your production for the time it takes to find
> the root cause of t
Hi Matthias,
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 09:34:31AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Am 11.03.2017 um 14:13 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> >
> > OK so this is the one that I initially suspected and that after you
> > reverted, didn't fix the issue for you.
> >
> > Are you sure you didn't have
> On 12 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Matthias Fechner wrote:
>
>
> I checked the port again and there is one patch applied to haproxy, but
> it is a different file, so it should not cause the patch to fail, but
> maybe can cause other problems.
> --- src/hlua_fcn.c.orig 2016-12-17 13:58:44.786067000 +03
Hi Willy,
Am 11.03.2017 um 14:13 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
>
> OK so this is the one that I initially suspected and that after you
> reverted, didn't fix the issue for you.
>
> Are you sure you didn't have a problem when you reverted it ? (eg:
> failed to restart the process or something like this).
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 01:54:57PM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Am 11.03.2017 um 13:45 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > I don't understand, the bisection didn't end ?
> >
> > Otherwise I'm inclined to think that the regression comes from
> > "BUG/MEDIUM: tcp: don't poll for write when connect() succe
Am 11.03.2017 um 13:45 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> I don't understand, the bisection didn't end ?
>
> Otherwise I'm inclined to think that the regression comes from
> "BUG/MEDIUM: tcp: don't poll for write when connect() succeeds", which
> it the one I proposed you to revert and which didn't change an
Hi Matthias,
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 01:16:19PM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Am 07.03.2017 um 17:26 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> >
> > So they're pretty much identical except the version. Are you interested in
> > trying to do a bisection between 1.7.2 and 1.7.3 to find the culprit
Hi Willy,
Am 07.03.2017 um 17:26 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
>
> So they're pretty much identical except the version. Are you interested in
> trying to do a bisection between 1.7.2 and 1.7.3 to find the culprit commit ?
> There are only 20 patches so it should take about 5 attempts so depending
> on th
Hi Matthias,
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 01:21:39PM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> could you please check my first post, there is the complete haproxy config
> included,
Oh I'm sorry, I simply cannot catch up with so many e-mails, at ~1500/day
that's about 10k/wk and I can't follow any single threa
Am 2017-03-07 10:15, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Thanks. In the mean time, I'm interested in trying to figure the code
paths we follow. Could please tell me :
- if you're using send-proxy on your server lines ?
yes, all 2 backends have (but see first post, for full config:
backend nginx-ht
Am 2017-03-07 10:19, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
If I do a netstat -an I see a lot of:
tcp4 0 0 127.0.0.1.443 127.0.0.1.47010
TIME_WAIT
tcp4 0 0 127.0.0.1.443 127.0.0.1.46961
CLOSE_WAIT
tcp4 0 0 127.0.0.1.46961127.0.0.1.443
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:14:42AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Am 2017-03-07 00:32, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > patch -Rp1 <
> > 0001-BUG-MEDIUM-tcp-don-t-poll-for-write-when-connect-suc.patch
> >
> > I've just tested here on 1.7.3 and it does apply correctly.
> >
> > With git apply you'll
Am 2017-03-07 00:32, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
patch -Rp1 <
0001-BUG-MEDIUM-tcp-don-t-poll-for-write-when-connect-suc.patch
I've just tested here on 1.7.3 and it does apply correctly.
With git apply you'll have to pass -R as well.
Sorry for not being clear the first time.
so, shortly after I
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:30:43AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Thanks Willy,
>
> Am 07.03.2017 um 00:32 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > Sorry, when I said "revert" I meant typically like this :
> >
> > patch -Rp1 <
> > 0001-BUG-MEDIUM-tcp-don-t-poll-for-write-when-connect-suc.patch
> >
> > I've
Thanks Willy,
Am 07.03.2017 um 00:32 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Sorry, when I said "revert" I meant typically like this :
>
> patch -Rp1 < 0001-BUG-MEDIUM-tcp-don-t-poll-for-write-when-connect-suc.patch
>
> I've just tested here on 1.7.3 and it does apply correctly.
>
> With git apply you'll have
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:19:18PM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Dear Willy and Dmitry,
>
> Am 06.03.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > with the attachment now (thanks Dmitry)
>
> hm, I'm not able to apply the patch:
> git apply --ignore-space-change --ignore-whitespace
> 0001-BUG-MEDIUM
Dear Willy and Dmitry,
Am 06.03.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> with the attachment now (thanks Dmitry)
hm, I'm not able to apply the patch:
git apply --ignore-space-change --ignore-whitespace
0001-BUG-MEDIUM-tcp-don-t-poll-for-write-when-connect-suc.patch
But I get:
0001-BUG-MEDIUM-tcp-d
with the attachment now (thanks Dmitry)
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:44:56AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:59:21AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> > Hi Georg,
> >
> > Am 06.03.2017 um 09:43 schrieb Georg Faerber:
> > > I'm not running FreeBSD myself, but have a look at [
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:59:21AM +0100, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
> Am 06.03.2017 um 09:43 schrieb Georg Faerber:
> > I'm not running FreeBSD myself, but have a look at [1]: In the
> > follow-ups to this thread there are two more people reporting problems.
> >
> > [1] https://www.mai
Am 2017-03-06 10:05, schrieb Matthias Fechner:
Dear Rainer,
I opened a bug report here:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217576
I have only one server already upgraded to FreeBSD 11. The 10.3
installation are running fine with haproxy 1.7.3.
Thanks!
Dear Rainer,
Am 06.03.2017 um 09:52 schrieb rai...@ultra-secure.de:
> it would be cool if somebody could open a PR at
>
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/
>
> I personally don't use FreeBSD 11 for any of my HAProxy-installations
> (yet), so I'm not really affected (yet) - but thanks for the heads-up.
I
Hi Georg,
Am 06.03.2017 um 09:43 schrieb Georg Faerber:
> I'm not running FreeBSD myself, but have a look at [1]: In the
> follow-ups to this thread there are two more people reporting problems.
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg25093.html
no, this cannot be the problem
Hi,
it would be cool if somebody could open a PR at
https://bugs.freebsd.org/
I personally don't use FreeBSD 11 for any of my HAProxy-installations
(yet), so I'm not really affected (yet) - but thanks for the heads-up.
Regards,
Rainer
Hi Matthias,
On 17-03-06 09:34:07, Matthias Fechner wrote:
> are problem with haproxy 1.7.3 on FreeBSD 11.0-p8 known?
I'm not running FreeBSD myself, but have a look at [1]: In the
follow-ups to this thread there are two more people reporting problems.
Cheers,
Georg
[1] https://www.mail-archiv
40 matches
Mail list logo
