Thanks for your suggestion, Lukas. For my own understanding, are you saying that there is no difference between having "http-keep-alive" and having "http-server-close" to a backend server once websocket connection to that server is establish, and both settings allow for establishing websocket connection perfectly.
So is there any advantage of having "http-keep-alive" to a websocket backend? On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Lukas Tribus <luky...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > >> In the latest HAProxy 1.5 release (dev22), it is indicated that >> keep-alive is now enabled by default for both client and server sides. >> I have some questions regarding its use in the following scenario. >> >> I use HAProxy in front of an array of servers: one nginx for >> delivering static files, and the others being application servers. One >> of the application servers exclusively deals with websocket (or in the >> event of ws failure, switching to streaming) connections. Currently, I >> am using 'http-server-close' by default for all servers, but I think >> it'd be better to switch to 'http-keep-alive' for the nginx and keep >> 'http-server-close' for the websockets server. > > You can just default to http-keep-alive everywhere. > > HAProxy recognizes the upgrade headers and switches to TCP mode > automatically [1]. > > Recognizing the upgrade in a HTTP transaction is possible with all modes > expect tcp mode (of course) and (the pre-dev22 default) http tunnel mode [2]. > > > >> Is this a correct setup? Thanks. > > It is, but you may as well simplify it with http-keep-alive on all sections. > > I don't see any advantage by configuring http-server-close on the websocket > backend. > > Of course you should test this, before putting it in production. > > > > Regards, > > Lukas > > > > [1] > http://blog.exceliance.fr/2012/11/07/websockets-load-balancing-with-haproxy/ > [2] http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/configuration-1.5.html#4
