Hi, Here is the 1.7.5 output with CDN, before 05:22:00 PM with timestamps in the file, there is no request, since 05:22:00 PM, I began the benchmark, so you can check from 05:22:00 PM. 61.155.222.157 is cdn itself
The file is large here is the download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yrv7l3m8hw32rr9/1.7.5-sess?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/pb7zglhnyovo79f/1.7.5-tcp?dl=0 On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 02:43:54PM +0800, jaseywang wrote: > > 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 > > Ah OK, it was not easy to spot after 5500 lines of session dumps. I could > download these two files. > > The first thing I'm noticing is that the few affected sessions I checked > were > all carrying HEAD requests and that the server takes a long time to respond > to these requests (5-8s), maybe as a side effect of the large number of > connections. > > I'm seeing a strange one here, the end-to-end connection is : > > 61.155.222.157:39891 --> [:443 -- :59323] --> 10.32.132.114:80 > > The connection arrived at 17:30:20, and presented a 854 bytes-long request, > forwarded to the server over socket fd 5721. The response is never > received, > but the netstat output indicates that it was received. The server-side > connection flags report that it's not polling for reads, so that explains > it. From this point I cannot dig further, because this situation might be > caused by one of the 183 bugs already fixed and complicates the diagnostic. > > We really need to have a dump produced using an up-to-date version. Since > you said you tried 1.7.5 and you got the same problem using it, please run > the captures using this version, at least it is not affected by all the > problems we already fixed over the last 2.5 years. > > Regards, > willy >
