Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/issues/1335
@zwoop Where you able to come up with a reproducible case for this? I'm
going to try and take a look this week-- it'd be easier if I had a repro method
:)
---
If your project is set up
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1456
It seems like we should have some sort of layered approach, where we keep
track of tcp (l4) http (L5?) and TLS (L7). We have metrics for some of this it
sounds, but IIRC they are a bit
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1223
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1223
Add docs for the hostdb cache metrics
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver hostdb_docs
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1186
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1186
TestCase fix: Fix retry counter
++count in python adds nothing to count, it does not incr the count
variable. This simply fixes that to increment so it doesn't retru forever
You can
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1168
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1168
@zwoop Hopefully all labelled correctly?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1168
Tsqa-- switch to using build that exist
Now that trafficserver support exposing what features it has through
`traffic_layout` we don't need to build ATS for every run of TSQA (yay!). Once
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1079
If the HttpSM skips hostdb not only does it skip the DNS lookup (which as
@jpeach mentioned is already skipped) this will skip all `last_failure`
detection. So, it seems
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1156
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1156
TS-4968: Log a warning if connect_attempts_rr_retries is >=
connect_attempts_max_retries
Fix formatting and compiler warning
You can merge this pull request into a Git reposit
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1105
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
An update to summarize updates from today:
After looking into it the core issue with the crash I was seeing is that
the read/write side of the VIOs where being called regardless
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
Closing the PR-- as we'll take care of this in Jira.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108
Closing the PR-- as we'll take care of this in Jira.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
After doing some testing with this patch, I see crashes where write_to_net
is being called with a null vc lock.
```
(gdb) list
416 }
417 while ((vc
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
After doing some more looking, the `m_deleted` flag is just marking the
VConn as "we should delete this" and that combined with `m_deletable` lets it
reschedule the delete in
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
@shinrich I did look a bit more into the other backport-- and it seems that
the outcome would be quite similar-- as the `handle_event` method is still
using this `m_deleted` flag
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108
@jpeach yes, although since 5.2.x drops support in the next month-- its
probably not work backporting to the 5.2.x branch-- there is another PR for
6.2.x.
---
If your project is set up
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
@shinrich we could-- this patch seems to be working fine for our build
though-- seemed like a less intrusive patch to an LTS release.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108#discussion_r83342298
--- Diff: proxy/InkAPI.cc ---
@@ -1053,15 +1053,14 @@ int
INKVConnInternal::handle_event(int event, void *edata
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108
@jpeach The issue is that an event shows up after the object was
destroyed() the destroy() mechanism sets the deleted flag-- previously what was
happening is that if an event showed up
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108#discussion_r83455610
--- Diff: proxy/InkAPI.cc ---
@@ -1053,15 +1053,14 @@ int
INKVConnInternal::handle_event(int event, void *edata
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
@jpeach TBH I'm not sure, I figured the PR would be good at least to get
the CI to run on it-- I'm not sure what our official process is now that we do
github for *some* things
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1106
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1106
Seems that this does already exists from TS-4148, just couldn't find it ;)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
TS-4970: Crash in INKVConnInternal when handle_event is called after
destroy()
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1108
TS-4970: Crash in INKVConnInternal when handle_event is called after
destroy()
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1106
I'm not sure about the name (currently `prr`), anyone have opinions on the
name?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1106
Add prr proxy_request_retries log field
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver TS-4969
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1105
TS-4968: Log a warning if connect_attempts_rr_retries is >=
connect_attempts_max_retries
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull ht
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1095#discussion_r82878003
--- Diff: iocore/hostdb/test_RefCountCache.cc ---
@@ -135,8 +135,6 @@ testRefcounting()
cache->put(1, to_delete);
ret |= to_del
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1095#discussion_r82878134
--- Diff: iocore/hostdb/test_RefCountCache.cc ---
@@ -166,6 +164,8 @@ testRefcounting()
ret |= tmpAfter.get()->idx != 1;
printf(&
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1070
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1088
Re-pasting comments from IRC-- for easier retrieval.
The pop you remove does seem extraneous-- and there are test cases for some
of the refcountcache stuff
(https://github.com
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1070
Definitely going to squash :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1035
+1 on metric for this :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
@zwoop ping again :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1070#discussion_r81797531
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpSM.cc ---
@@ -5310,9 +5310,6 @@ HttpSM::handle_post_failure()
tunnel.deallocate_buffers();
tunnel.reset
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1070
@jpeach I've updated the PR with your feedback-- although I'm not sure how
to mark it as "done"-- its still showing that you have changes requested which
is odd :/
---
If yo
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1070
TS-4509 Add `outstanding_bytes` to VConnection
With this we can better check request retryability. This (in addition to
not releasing the sessions immediately on error) means
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
@zwoop ping :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
Sure, I ran it in a test env for a few days with no issues, I also have a
test case for the RST behavior which is passing as well.
Probably worth running on docs just to see
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1020
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1020
TS-4867: Only schedule the serializer after we have completely finishâ¦
â¦ed initializing
Otherwise there is a race between initialization and the eventProcessor
You can merge
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1004
IIRC the plan was to leave this enabled by default? From what I remember of
the conversations at the last summit-- the main problem with the current one is
that its terrible and causes
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947#discussion_r77858252
--- Diff: iocore/net/UnixNet.cc ---
@@ -525,7 +531,17 @@ NetHandler::mainNetEvent(int event, Event *e)
close_UnixNetVConnection(vc
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947#discussion_r77699771
--- Diff: iocore/net/UnixNet.cc ---
@@ -542,7 +555,14 @@ NetHandler::mainNetEvent(int event, Event *e)
close_UnixNetVConnection(vc
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
That all sounds reasonable :) I just pushed a new commit here which does
effectively what you are suggesting-- just both on the read and write side (as
well as the few other little changes
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
The behavior I see on master (without this patch) is that ATS doesn't close
the session when getting the RST. From digging that UnixNetHandler gets an
EPOLLERR -- which attempts to add
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
TS-4796 Change UnixNetHandler to always bubble up epoll errors to the
VConnection
Before if the vcon wasn't read or write enabled errors would be swallowed.
This leads to a variety
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/351
@bryancall it'd be nice if we could have some way to "re-enable" the
bytes-- such that a plugin could either buffer everything or stream (since the
"buffer everything"
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/841
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/841
I haven't added tests to the synthetic server before-- but it is a
relatively easy case to reproduce.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/836
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/841
TS-4720 correctly check if requests have a body
HttpTransact defaults content length to `-1`, meaning that if the request
has no content length header it will be `-1`. These checks weren't
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/836
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/836
@zwoop fixed, i forgot to add the new string to that test case. Added, and
the test is passing locally. Its a bit of a pain to add overrideable config--
as it has to be added in ~5 places
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/836
TS-4710
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver TS-4710
Alternatively you can review and apply
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/827
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/827
I can squash the 2 test commits, I like to keep tests in separate commits
from the code-- easier to backport :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/827
Ts 4693
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver TS-4693
Alternatively you can review and apply
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/768
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/820
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/820
TS-4622
Cleanup of #773
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver TS-4622
Alternatively you can review
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/773
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/812
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/812#discussion_r71542146
--- Diff: iocore/dns/DNS.cc ---
@@ -1514,24 +1514,24 @@ dns_process(DNSHandler *handler, HostEnt *buf, int
len)
cp += dn_skipname(cp
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/773
@jpeach
I did some testing of my own and I can't reproduce any problems with
`TsHttpTxnServerAddrSet()` at all. TSHttpTxnServerAddrSet() is supposed to be
called before the DNS
Github user jacksontj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/773#discussion_r71536060
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransact.cc ---
@@ -1783,7 +1783,13 @@ HttpTransact::OSDNSLookup(State *s)
// update some state variables with hostdb
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/812
Yes, and we actually already do that for seemingly all the other types--
but not for SRV :/
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/773
@jpeach `HttpTransact::OSDNSLookup` seems to be the correct place-- as it
is called immediately after the DNS lookup is complete-- and is what sets the
port numbers for the destination
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/809
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/812
TS-4688 handle DNS compression labels in SRV responses
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver TS-4688
Github user jacksontj closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/811
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/811
TS-4684 Leaked references to HostDBInfos from HttpTransact
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/jacksontj/trafficserver TS
Github user jacksontj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/773
Yea, I'll have to look a bit more. Ideally its as close to that DNS lookup
as possible, that way if some plugin wants to overwrite it I've done the change
in core before they can (so
GitHub user jacksontj opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/809
TS-4674: Remove useless assert statement
Now that we have clean allocations (instead of clobbering existing things)
there is no need to have this assertion. In practice this assertion
81 matches
Mail list logo
