To close this thread out: we found the issue to be in 1.6.4-20160426 patch
that I was using. The issue is fixed in 1.6.5.
Thanks Willy and Lukas.
Thanks
Sachin
On 5/13/16, 8:14 PM, "Willy Tarreau" wrote:
>On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 07:32:36PM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote:
>> In 24
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 07:32:36PM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote:
> In 24 hours all servers had connections growing, we have reverted the
> patch for now.
>
> I have the show sess all output if you would like to see.
Interestingly in the "show sess all" from yesterday I'm seeing only
negative
Hi Sachin,
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 07:32:36PM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote:
> In 24 hours all servers had connections growing, we have reverted the
> patch for now.
>
> I have the show sess all output if you would like to see.
Thank you very much, that's extremely useful. I'll probably get back
In 24 hours all servers had connections growing, we have reverted the
patch for now.
I have the show sess all output if you would like to see.
Thanks
Sachin
On 5/12/16, 10:08 PM, "Sachin Shetty" wrote:
>Hi Lukas,
>
>Attached output.
>
>Thanks
>Sachin
>
>On 5/12/16, 7:41
Hi,
Am 12.05.2016 um 14:37 schrieb Sachin Shetty:
Hi Willy,
We are seeing a strange problem on the patched server. We have several
haproxy servers running but only one with the latest patch, and this
haproxy has frozen twice in last two days, basically it hits max open
connections 2000 on
Hi Willy,
We are seeing a strange problem on the patched server. We have several
haproxy servers running but only one with the latest patch, and this
haproxy has frozen twice in last two days, basically it hits max open
connections 2000 on frontend and then stalls. From the logs it has 1999
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:10:14AM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote:
> We deployed the latest and we saw throughput still dropped around peak
> hours a bit, then we swithed to nbproc 4 which is holding up ok.
So probably you were reaching the processing limits for a single process,
that can easily
We deployed the latest and we saw throughput still dropped around peak
hours a bit, then we swithed to nbproc 4 which is holding up ok. Note that
4 Cpus was not sufficient earlier, so I believe the latest version is
scaling better.
Thanks Lukas and Willy.
On 4/29/16, 11:09 AM, "Willy Tarreau"
Thanks Lukas and Willy. I am in the process of getting 1.6.4-20160426
deployed in our QA, I will keep you guys posted.
On 4/29/16, 11:09 AM, "Willy Tarreau" wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:46:37AM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>> Hi Sachin,
>>
>>
>> there is another
Hi guys,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:46:37AM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hi Sachin,
>
>
> there is another fix Willy recently committed, its ff9c7e24fb [1]
> and its in the snapshots [2] since 1.6.4-20160426.
>
> This is supposed to fix the issue altogether.
>
> Please let us know if this
Hi Sachin,
there is another fix Willy recently committed, its ff9c7e24fb [1]
and its in the snapshots [2] since 1.6.4-20160426.
This is supposed to fix the issue altogether.
Please let us know if this works for you.
Thanks,
Lukas
[1]
Hi Lukas,
We tried the patch, it seems better. As soon as we switched nbproc off,
throughput did not drop immediately like it did with earlier version, it
started deteriorating slowly as traffic increased to peak hours, but
eventually it did crash to the same levels as before.
CPU Usage was also
Hi,
Am 21.04.2016 um 08:11 schrieb Sachin Shetty:
Hi,
any hints to further isolate this - we have deferred the problem by adding
all the cores we had, but I have a feeling that our request rate is not
that high (7K per minute a peak) and it will show up again as traffic
increases.
Thanks
Hi,
any hints to further isolate this - we have deferred the problem by adding
all the cores we had, but I have a feeling that our request rate is not
that high (7K per minute a peak) and it will show up again as traffic
increases.
Thanks
Sachin
On 4/18/16, 12:22 PM, "Sachin Shetty"
Hi Lukas,
We upgraded to 1.6, went back to nbproc 1 from 12 and the problem showed
up again. Haproxy hitting 90-100% and monitors reported download speed
drop from 100MBPS to 10MBPS immediately.
I ran strace as you said, output it huge, have attached a small subset of
it in the email. Please let
agree to both the points.
Thanks
Sachin
On 4/7/16, 11:24 PM, "Willy Tarreau" wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:59:24PM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote:
>> Hi Willy,
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion. I wrote to you much before in my
>>investigation. I
>> will take care going forward.
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:59:24PM +0530, Sachin Shetty wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Sorry for the confusion. I wrote to you much before in my investigation. I
> will take care going forward.
OK but in general the point remains, and it's not just for you but for
everyone in general, the mailing list
Hi Willy,
Sorry for the confusion. I wrote to you much before in my investigation. I
will take care going forward.
Only now I realized that I messed up the version numbers because it seems
we have different versions in our cluster.
We are now testing with 1.6.4 and trying to fast track it.
Hi Sachin,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:21:16PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 05.04.2016 um 09:38 schrieb Sachin Shetty:
> >Hi Lukas, Pavlos,
> >
> >Thanks for your response, more info as requested.
> >
> >1. Attached conf with some obfuscation
> >2. Haproxy -vv
> >HA-Proxy version 1.5.4
Hi,
Am 05.04.2016 um 09:38 schrieb Sachin Shetty:
Hi Lukas, Pavlos,
Thanks for your response, more info as requested.
1. Attached conf with some obfuscation
2. Haproxy -vv
HA-Proxy version 1.5.4 2014/09/02
Copyright 2000-2014 Willy Tarreau
I would upgrade to something more
Hi Lukas, Pavlos,
Thanks for your response, more info as requested.
1. Attached conf with some obfuscation
2. Haproxy -vv
HA-Proxy version 1.5.4 2014/09/02
Copyright 2000-2014 Willy Tarreau
Build options :
TARGET = linux2628
CPU = generic
CC = gcc
CFLAGS = -O2
Hi Sachin,
(due to email troubles on my side this may look like a new thread, sorry
about that)
> We have quite a few regex and acls in our config, is there a way to
profile
> haproxy and see what could be slowing it down?
You can use strace for syscalls or ltrace for library calls to see
On 04/04/2016 05:23 μμ, Sachin Shetty wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am chasing some weird capacity issues in our setup.
>
> Haproxy which also does SSL is forwarding request to various other
> servers upstream. I am seeing a simple 100MB file download from our
> upstream components starts to slow down
Hi,
I am chasing some weird capacity issues in our setup.
Haproxy which also does SSL is forwarding request to various other servers
upstream. I am seeing a simple 100MB file download from our upstream
components starts to slow down time to time like hitting as low as 1MBPS,
usually is it
24 matches
Mail list logo