On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 06:49:09PM +0200, William Dauchy wrote:
> We do frequent reloads (approximatively every 10s).
> After a while some processes remains alive and seem to never exit (waited >24
> hours). While stracing them, some of them are still handling traffic and
> doing healthchecks. Some of them are exiting normally after the reload.
> I was wondering how I can help to debug this issue. I assume I won't
> have any other info through the stats socket, since it concerns older
> processes but maybe I missed something.
> Do you have any hint to help me understand what is going on?

More details which could help understand what is going on:

ps output:

root     15928  0.3  0.0 255216 185268 ?       Ss   May21  10:11 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 16988 
16912 6340 28271 30590 30334 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats
haproxy   6340  2.0  0.0 526172 225476 ?       Ssl  May22  35:03  \_ 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 6328 
6315 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats
haproxy  28271  1.8  0.0 528720 229508 ?       Ssl  May22  27:13  \_ 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 28258 
28207 28232 6340 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats
haproxy  30590  265  0.0 527268 225032 ?       Rsl  04:35 2188:55  \_ 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 30578 
28271 6340 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats
haproxy  30334  197  0.0 526704 224544 ?       Rsl  09:17 1065:59  \_ 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 30322 
30295 27095 6340 28271 30590 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats
haproxy  16912  1.7  0.0 527544 216552 ?       Ssl  18:14   0:03  \_ 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 16899 
28271 30590 30334 6340 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats
haproxy  17001  2.2  0.0 528392 214656 ?       Ssl  18:17   0:00  \_ 
/usr/sbin/haproxy -Ws -f /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg -p /run/haproxy.pid -sf 16988 
16912 6340 28271 30590 30334 -x /var/lib/haproxy/stats


lsof output:

haproxy    6340        haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy    6340  6341  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy    6340  6342  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy    6340  6343  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   17020        haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   17020 17021  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   17020 17022  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   17020 17023  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   28271        haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   28271 28272  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   28271 28273  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp
haproxy   28271 28274  haproxy    5u     unix 0xffff883feec97000       0t0  
679289634 /var/lib/haproxy/stats.15928.tmp

(So on unhealthy nodes, I find old processes which are still linked to
the socket.)

The provisioning part is also seeing data which are supposed to be
already updated through the runtime API. I suspect I am getting old
data when connecting to the unix socket. The later being still attached
to an old process?
Indeed, if I try
for i in {1..500}; do sudo echo "show info" | sudo socat stdio  
/var/lib/haproxy/stats  | grep Pid; done

I get "Pid: 17001" most of the time, which is the last process
but I sometimes get: "Pid: 28271"(!) which is a > 24 hours old
process.

Is there something we are doing wrongly?

Best,

-- 
William

Reply via email to