Stupid question, but what ports do you have defined in your “bunnies.config” 
file? I see you listening on 5678 but I know the default port for Rabbit is 
5672. I see 5672 listed in your haproxy config but RabbitMQ might be listening 
elsewhere. Also, what client are you using to make the connection? I would also 
check its config file as well to point to port 5678 as most will think you are 
using 5672. 


On Feb 6, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:25:02PM -0600, Ryan O'Hara wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:15:31PM -0600, Kuldip Madnani wrote:
>>> I have the following setting for HAProxy and no settings in client for
>>> connectionFactory:
>>> 
>>> defaults
>>> log         global
>>> mode        tcp
>>> option      tcplog
>>> option      dontlognull
>>> retries     3
>>> option      redispatch
>>> maxconn     4096
>>> timeout connect 5s # default 5 second time out if a backend is not found
>>> timeout client 300s
>>> timeout server 300s
>> 
>> OK. 300s is more than enough.
>> 
>>> # Entries for rabbitmq_CLUSTER6 Listener
>>> #--------------------------------------#
>>> listen rabbitmq_CLUSTER6   *:5678
>>> mode       tcp
>>> maxconn    8092
>>> option     allbackups
>>> balance    roundrobin
>>> server LISTENER_rabbitmq_CLUSTER6_zldv3697_vci_att_com_5672
>>> zldv3697.XXX.XXX.com:5672 weight 10 check inter 5000 rise 2 fall 3
>>> ##########################################
>>> 
>>> Do these values impact and throw java.io.EOFException.
>> 
>> I have no idea. My first thought was the your connections were timing
>> out and the application didn't handle it well.
>> 
>> I don't think this is an haproxy issue. I have haproxy working in
>> front of a RabbitMQ cluster and have not hit any problems. The
>> configuration I am using can be found here:
>> 
>> http://openstack.redhat.com/RabbitMQ
> 
> Do you know if any port information is transported in the protocol ? Since
> haproxy and the server are on different ports, this could be one possible
> explanation.
> 
> Willy

Reply via email to