Delivery Failure

[Postmaster]

-
The message you sent to mptourism.com/yuvraj was rejected because it would 
exceed the quota for the mailbox.

The subject of the message follows: 
Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail


-

FW: T-shirt and baseball caps manufacture

[Danie]

Dear customer

 

We are QingDao Good Garment Co.,Ltd.

 

we mainly produce t-shirts and polo shirts,all kinds of baseball caps
and fitted caps, and etc.  

 

We can provide the special service according to your requirements and
your logo design due to the professional designers, 

 

manufacture teams and advanced equipments in our company.

 

Please visit our website: http://www.good-garment.com
 

 

Looking forward to our friendly cooperation.

 

 

Email: sa...@good-garment.com

Re: HAProxy and DDOS protection

[Baptiste]

Hi David,

For now, you can only track source IPs.
I guess that tracking on headers is on the roadmap, but I can't
provide any date.

Only Willy could answer if this is doable and when.

cheers



On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:46 AM, David Birdsong
 wrote:
> I set out to leverage gpc's and stick tables a few months back, but
> alas was stopped in my tracks as only layer 4 data is useful to match
> on. The info I'd need to work with would be found in HTTP headers, ie.
> X-Forwarded-For or some other sort of of custom header.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Baptiste  wrote:
>> Hey the list,
>>
>> Just to let you know a new blog post about HAProxy and DDOS protection.
>> The configuration examples applies to HAProxy 1.5 branch.
>>
>> Have a nice read:
>> http://blog.exceliance.fr/2012/02/27/use-a-load-balancer-as-a-first-row-of-defense-against-ddos/
>>
>> Any feedback is welcome :)
>>
>> cheers
>>

PROXY protocol and "balance source"

[haproxy]

Hi Folks,

When using stud/stunnel in front of HAProxy, and using the PROXY protocol -
Is it possible to make "balance source" distribute based on the client ip (from 
the PROXY protocol) rather than the ip of the decryption engine?

Thanks,
Alex

---
posted at http://www.serverphorums.com
http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?10,452932,452932#msg-452932

Re: killing persisent conections on backends marked down?

[Siva]

Hi Willy,

>> is it possible for haproxy to failover to a backup,
>> but not failback even if the server is alive again?

I have the same problem.
I would like for my primary to be detected as UP, but not do the failback
immediately. Is it possible to failback to the primary only when the backup
becomes unhealthy?

I use HAProxy with two mysql servers in Active/Backup configuration.
Sometimes, the primary mysql-server's CPU utilization increases a lot and it is
unable to service queries quickly enough. The queries and connections pile up
and exceed max_connections limit.
My HAProxy detects this as an unhealthy condition and fails over to the
mysql-server backup.
At this point, the primary mysql-server slowly processes a couple of queries and
the number of connections reduces to a value that is just below max_connections.
HAPRoxy's health check goes through and determines the primary to be healthy and
failback happens to an already overloaded primary.
When this happens, inevitably the primary chokes again in a couple of seconds
and a failover happens once again to the backup .. and the process repeats.

I think that in this case, it would be great if HAProxy stayed with the
mysql-server backup and switched back only when the backup becomes unhealthy.

Is it possible to configure HAProxy to stick with the backup and not failback ?

Thanks
Siva

Willy Tarreau  1wt.eu> writes:

> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:05:02PM -0500, Greg Gard wrote:
> > sorry willy i sent this to wrong address. here is my other question:
> > 
> > one more thing. is it possible for haproxy to failover to a backup,
> > but not failback even if the server is alive again? for example, if i
> > could set rise to be infinite so that once it was down, it was down
> > for good? currently, i am handling this with a text file that gets
> > written and once there forces my ruby db checker to return 5xx to
> > haproxy. can you all think of any better way to deal with this withing
> > haproxy?
> 
> Well, there's no easy way to do this, but more importantly you don't
> describe how you want to proceed to put the service back online after
> the issue. Obviously you won't leave your server dead forever in a
> rack and through it to the bin every time it fails. So "infinite"
> here is still the wrong solution. I have a feeling that in fact
> you're trying to use haproxy more as a fuse or an on/off switch
> than for what it's designed.
> 
> I really believe that you have to rethink the whole lifecycle of
> your components and write down rules indicating after what event
> you consider them dead, and after what event you consider them
> usable again. You also have to identify if certain maintenance
> operations are needed during the up->dead or dead->up transition.
> Think of it just as if someone else was managing your haproxy and
> you couldn't call him every day to stop/start/change configs.
> 
> That's the only way you'll manage to get a reliable and easily
> manageable application.
> 
> Regards,
> Willy
> 
>