On Tue, Oct 6, 2015, at 04:33 PM, James Peach wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2015, at 9:16 AM, Nick Muerdter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've observed some differences in how TrafficServer 6.0.0 behaves with > > connection retrying and outgoing keep-alive connections. I believe the > > changes in behavior might be related to this issue: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3440 However, I wasn't sure if > > the new behavior (specifically around keep-alive handling) was > > intentional or not, so I thought I'd ping the mailing list. > > > > What I'm seeing in 6.0.0 is that if TrafficServer has some backend > > keep-alive connections already opened, but then one of the keep-alive > > connections is closed, the next request to TrafficServer may generate a > > 502 Server Hangup response when attempting to reuse that connection. > > Previously, I think TrafficServer was retrying when it encountered a > > closed keep-alive connection, but that is no longer the case. So if you > > have a backend that might unexpectedly close its open keep-alive > > connections, the only way I've found to completely prevent these 502 > > errors in 6.0.0 is to disable outgoing keepalive > > (proxy.config.http.keep_alive_enabled_out and > > proxy.config.http.keep_alive_post_out settings). > > > > For a slightly more concrete example of what can trigger this, this is > > fairly easy to reproduce with the following setup: > > > > - TrafficServer is proxying to nginx with outgoing keep-alive > > connections enabled (the default). > > - Throw a constant stream of requests at TrafficServer. > > - While that constant stream of requests is happening, also send a > > regular stream of SIGHUP commands to nginx to reload nginx. > > - Eventually you'll get some 502 Server Hangup responses from > > TrafficServer among your stream of requests. > > > > SIGHUPs in nginx should result in zero downtime for new requests, but I > > think what's happening is that TrafficServer may fail when an old > > keep-alived connection is reused (it's not common, so it depends on the > > timing of things and if the connection is from an old nginx worker that > > has since been shut down). In TrafficServer 5.3.1 these connection > > failures were retried, but in 6.0.0, no retries occur in this case. > > > > Here's some debug logs that show the difference in behavior between > > 6.0.0 and 5.3.1. Note that differences seem to stem from how each > > version eventually handles the "VC_EVENT_EOS" event following > > "&HttpSM::state_send_server_request_header, VC_EVENT_WRITE_COMPLETE". > > > > 5.3.1: > > https://gist.github.com/GUI/0c53a6c4fdc2782b14aa#file-trafficserver_5-3-1-log-L316 > > 6.0.0: > > https://gist.github.com/GUI/0c53a6c4fdc2782b14aa#file-trafficserver_6-0-0-log-L314 > > > > Interestingly, if I'm understand the log files correctly, it looks like > > TraffficServer is reporting an odd empty response from these connections > > ("HTTP/0.9 0" in 5.3.1 and "HTTP/1.0 0" in 6.0.0). However, as far as I > > can tell from TCP dumps on the system, nginx is not actually sending any > > form of response. > > > > So my basic question is whether the new behavior in 6.0.0 is correct or > > not. Based on the discussion in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3440 I'm unsure whether 5.3.1 > > retrying on these closed keep-alive connections was actually safe or > > not. In these example cases the backend server isn't sending back any > > data (at least as far as I can tell), so from what I understand, it > > should be safe to retry. However, I'm not totally sure that this > > situation with dead keep-alive connections can properly be distinguished > > between other types of hangups or connection errors, so perhaps it isn't > > safe. > > > > If the 6.0.0 behavior is correct, is disabling outgoing keep-alive > > connections the best option if I'm worried about backend services > > unexpectedly killing off old keep-alive connections? Or is this a bug > > with 6.0.0, and should TrafficServer retires technically be possible in > > these cases? > > Hi Nick, > > This sounds like a 6.0 regression to me. Can you file the above > information in Jira? > > thanks, > James
Thanks for the sanity check! I've filed an issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3959
