What you see is the data without cdn, you can get more data from the below section:
Let haproxy sit behind in CDN, the session rate is around 270/s , current > session is around 10k. below is the stats from haproxy and tcp. > current conns = 14269; current pipes = 0/0; conn rate = 270/sec > Running tasks: 6136/6143; idle = 0 % > Due to the tcp and haproxy stats is too large, I upload the monitoring > data to dropbox: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/zdyqn4ohvzv47zb/lb-sess?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/qrs7vzbcm8m2kwk/lb-tcp?dl=0 > Below is just a summary: > $ head lb-sess -n 999 > ==> lb-sess <== > 0x7f8a85a3b180: [21/Apr/2017:17:30:14.698864] id=943943 proto=tcpv4 source= > 61.155.222.157:37836 > flags=0x48e, conn_retries=3, srv_conn=(nil), pend_pos=(nil) > frontend=fe-wechat-443 (id=4 mode=http), listener=? (id=1) addr= > 111.111.111.111:443 > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 06:01:27PM +0800, jaseywang wrote: > > Without CDN, the session rate is around 2k/s, current session is around > 120: > > current conns = 118; current pipes = 0/0; conn rate = 1938/sec > > Running tasks: 2/127; idle = 42 % > > > > 111.111.111.111 is our haproxy public ip which accept the request from > > client > > 222.222.222.222 is our benchmark client ip without cdn, if use cdn, the > > client ip becomes 61.155.222.157 which is cdn itself > > 10.32.144.13 is our haproxy private ip which connect with our internal > nginx > > 10.32.132.119:80/10.32.132.114:80/10.32.132.116:80 is our nginx server > > > > Everything works perfect, below is the stats from haproxy and tcp, I > > collect the data every 3 seconds during the benchmark. > > > > # echo "show sess all" | socat stdio unix-connect:/var/run/haproxy.sock > > Your "show sess all" output doesn't match the netstat output, I can't > find a single port from the netstat output present there. Could you > make sure that you run them approximately at the same moment (ie no > more than a few seconds apart) so that it's possible to find the > CLOSE_WAIT sessions ? > > BTW, since you tried 1.7.5 as well, better pick its output if possible, > it's a bit more detailed. > > Also, your mailer mangles the output by wrapping lines, so if next time > you could attach the dumps instead of pasting them, that would help a lot. > > Regards, > Willy >
