Hi Pavlos, On 17:31 Fri 09 Dec , Pavlos Parissis wrote: > On 09/12/2016 08:54 πμ, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote: > > Hi Willy, Elias, > > > > On 08:33 Fri 09 Dec , Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote: > >>> # Should I use core 0 on each CPU for backends (proc 1+15) or should > >>> I > >>> use core 1(proc 2+16)? > >> > >> Backends are processed on the same CPU as the frontend which passes them > >> the traffic, so the bind-process has no effect there. In fact bind-process > >> on a backend means "at least on these processes". > >> > >> That's why it's better to proceed like this (stupid numbers, just so that > >> you get the idea): > >> > >> listen ssl-offload > >> bind-proess 2-50 > >> bind :443 ssl .... process 2 > >> ... > >> bind :443 ssl .... process 50 > > > > I wonder if a `per-process' keyword would make sense here. I find > > > > bind :443 ssl .... per-process > > > > more concise than 15 or 20 individual bind lines. This would have the > > same effect as N bind lines, one for each process in the bind-process > > list. > > If you have bind per process then all sockets are bound separately and you > get X listening sockets on port 443, which results to have one distinct socket > in each process with its own queue(SYN backlog queues and etc), and the > kernel's > load balancing works much better.
That's true, yes. However what I'm saying is that some syntactic sugar to have the parser auto-expand a single "bind" directive to create N sockets instead of one, would be nice. Regards, Apollon
