Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

is upstream keepalive connetions adaptable with websocket? Posted at Nginx Forum: https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,272808,275486#msg-275486 ___ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Hi Guys, we solved the problem and I wanted to give you feedback about the solution. Finally it was an problem with our linux ip routes. After implementing source based policy routing this nginx configuration worked. Thank you for your support! Kind Regards Lars Summary of Solution:

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

On 09/03/2017 21:10, larsg wrote: > Hi Reinis, > > yes, IPs exist: > > ifconfig > eth0: flags=4163 mtu 1500 > inet 192.168.1.130 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > ether fa:16:3e:1e:ad:da txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > ... > eth1:

Re: RE: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Hi Reinis, yes, IPs exist: ifconfig eth0: flags=4163 mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.130 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ether fa:16:3e:1e:ad:da txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) ... eth1: flags=4163 mtu 1500

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Hi everybody, ok, I recognized another linux network problem that I solved now. Situation now is like following: When I call my upstream address via curl (on the nginx host) by selecting the corresponding local interface (eth0-9 = 192.168.1.130-139) everything is fine. curl

RE: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

> When enabling sysctl option "net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind = 1" it is possible > to use local IP addresses (192.168.1.130-139) as proxy_bind address. > But than using such an address (other than 0.0.0.0), nginx will produce an > error message. Do the 192.168.1.130-139 IPs actually exist and are

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Thanks for the advice. I implemented this approach. Unfortunately not with 100% success. When enabling sysctl option "net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind = 1" it is possible to use local IP addresses (192.168.1.130-139) as proxy_bind address. But than using such an address (other than 0.0.0.0), nginx will

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

This is just a matter of number of ip addresses you have in a proxy_bind pool and suitable hash function for the split_clients map. Adding additional logic to proxy_bind ip address selection you still can face the same problem. On 3/8/17 9:45 PM, Tolga Ceylan wrote: > is IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

is IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT the best solution for OP's case? Unlike the blog post with two backends, OP's case has one backend server. If any of the hash slots exceed the 65K port limit, there's no chance to recover. Despite having enough port capacity, the client will receive an error if the

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

On 3/7/17 10:50 PM, larsg wrote: > Hi, > > we are operating native nginx 1.8.1 on RHEL as a reverse proxy. > The nginx routes requests to a backend server that can be reached from the > proxy via a single internal IP address. > We have to support a large number of concurrent websocket connections

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

On 3/8/17 3:57 AM, Tolga Ceylan wrote: > Of course, with split_clients, you are at the mercy of the hashing and > hope that this distribution will spread work > evenly based on incoming client address space and the duration of > these connections, so you might run into > the limits despite having

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Of course, with split_clients, you are at the mercy of the hashing and hope that this distribution will spread work evenly based on incoming client address space and the duration of these connections, so you might run into the limits despite having enough port capacity. More importantly, in case

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Yes, split_clients solution fits perfectly in the described use case. Also, nginx >= 1.11.4 has support for IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT socket option ([1], [2]) on supported systems (Linux kernel >= 4.2, glibc >= 2.23) which may be helpful as well. Quote from [1]: [..] Add IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

How about using split_clients "${remote_addr}AAA" $proxy_ip { 10% 192.168.1.10; 10% 192.168.1.11; ... * 192.168.1.19; } proxy_bind $proxy_ip; where $proxy_ip

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

> Am 07.03.2017 um 22:12 schrieb Nelson Marcos : > > Do you really need to use different source ips or it's a solution that you > picked? > > Also, is it a option to set the keepalive option in your upstream configure > section? >

Re: Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Do you really need to use different source ips or it's a solution that you picked? Also, is it a option to set the keepalive option in your upstream configure section? http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_upstream_module.html#keepalive Um abraço, NM 2017-03-07 16:50 GMT-03:00 larsg

Reverse Proxy with 500k connections

Hi, we are operating native nginx 1.8.1 on RHEL as a reverse proxy. The nginx routes requests to a backend server that can be reached from the proxy via a single internal IP address. We have to support a large number of concurrent websocket connections - say 100k to 500k. As we don't want to