Re: HA Proxy
> let me know how the backend server are busy in too the admin > and how load balancing works? I didn't understand the question, please clarify what exactly you are looking for. In short, LB algo can be set to the simple roundrobin, and you also provide a set of backends servers to be loadbalance'd in the configuration file. haproxy starts up, read the config file, and acts accordingly. All new connections are sent to the different backends in a roundrobin fashion, and assuming each connection does similar amount of work, the traffic get reasonably distributed among the servers. Thanks, - Krishna Kumar On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM, ANISH S IYER < anish.subramaniai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Krishna Kumar (Engineering) > Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM > Subject: Re: HA Proxy > To: ANISH S IYER > > > Please send mail to the full list, so that people can also respond and > confirm > what I am saying is right. I am also new to haproxy. Please cc all > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:20 AM, ANISH S IYER < > anish.subramaniai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> hI >> >> Thanks for your replay >> >> let me know how the backend server are busy in too the admin >> and how load balancing works? >> i googled this did not find an correct result >> >> let me know more details >> >> regards >> >> anish >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) < >> krishna...@flipkart.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:44 AM, ANISH S IYER < >>> anish.subramaniai...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 1) how ha proxy is know both of his front and backend server is waiting or busy.? >>> >>> I am not sure if I understood this right. Depending on the algo, the >>> backend is picked. >>> It should not care if the backend is ready or busy doing some work. The >>> new connection >>> will go to the selected backend (assuming maxconn for backend is not >>> full), and if that >>> backend is busy, the connection is queued at the backend. >>> >>> 2) when a new server is up how it can added to load balancing automatically. >>> >>> I think the correct way to add a new server is to update the >>> configuration file with the >>> server information, and run: /etc/init.d/haproxy reload >>> >>> I have seen that large I/O requests sometimes drop during this time (1 >>> in 20 or 30 times), but >>> more often than not, it works perfectly. >>> >>> - Krishna Kumar >>> >> >> > >
Fwd: HA Proxy
-- Forwarded message -- From: Krishna Kumar (Engineering) Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM Subject: Re: HA Proxy To: ANISH S IYER Please send mail to the full list, so that people can also respond and confirm what I am saying is right. I am also new to haproxy. Please cc all On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:20 AM, ANISH S IYER < anish.subramaniai...@gmail.com> wrote: > hI > > Thanks for your replay > > let me know how the backend server are busy in too the admin > and how load balancing works? > i googled this did not find an correct result > > let me know more details > > regards > > anish > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) < > krishna...@flipkart.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:44 AM, ANISH S IYER < >> anish.subramaniai...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 1) how ha proxy is know both of his front and backend server is waiting >>> or busy.? >>> >> >> I am not sure if I understood this right. Depending on the algo, the >> backend is picked. >> It should not care if the backend is ready or busy doing some work. The >> new connection >> will go to the selected backend (assuming maxconn for backend is not >> full), and if that >> backend is busy, the connection is queued at the backend. >> >> 2) when a new server is up how it can added to load balancing >>> automatically. >>> >> >> I think the correct way to add a new server is to update the >> configuration file with the >> server information, and run: /etc/init.d/haproxy reload >> >> I have seen that large I/O requests sometimes drop during this time (1 in >> 20 or 30 times), but >> more often than not, it works perfectly. >> >> - Krishna Kumar >> > >
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:54:57AM +0530, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) wrote: > I found the source of the problem. One of the backends was being shared > with another person who was testing iptables rules/tunnel setups, and > that might have caused some connection drops. I have now removed that > backend from my setup and use dedicated systems, after which the original > configuration without specifying source port is working, no connection flaps > now. So it that could explain that a lot of connections have accumulated locally in an unclean state (eg: FIN_WAIT1) and taken all the ports after a while. OK thanks for the feedback. willy
Re: HA Proxy
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:44 AM, ANISH S IYER wrote: 1) how ha proxy is know both of his front and backend server is waiting or > busy.? > I am not sure if I understood this right. Depending on the algo, the backend is picked. It should not care if the backend is ready or busy doing some work. The new connection will go to the selected backend (assuming maxconn for backend is not full), and if that backend is busy, the connection is queued at the backend. 2) when a new server is up how it can added to load balancing > automatically. > I think the correct way to add a new server is to update the configuration file with the server information, and run: /etc/init.d/haproxy reload I have seen that large I/O requests sometimes drop during this time (1 in 20 or 30 times), but more often than not, it works perfectly. - Krishna Kumar
HA Proxy
Hi let me know the answers of the following question 1) how ha proxy is know both of his front and backend server is waiting or busy.? 2) when a new server is up how it can added to load balancing automatically. let me know more details looking forward to hear soon thanks in advance regards anish
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
The performance is really good now, thanks to the great responses on this list. I also increased the nginx's keepalive to 1m as Pavlos suggested. # ab -k -n 100 -c 500 http://:80/64 Requests per second:181623.35 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 53414.40 [Kbytes/sec] received (both values are as good as doing direct backend) # ab -k -n 10 -c 500 http://:80/256K Requests per second:4191.92 [#/sec] (mean) Transfer rate: 1074111.06 [Kbytes/sec] received (4.8% less for both numbers as compared to direct backend) If it is helpful, I can post the various parameters that were set (system level + haproxy + backend) if it will be useful for someone else in future. Thanks, - Krishna Kumar On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Baptiste wrote: > > Le 7 mai 2015 04:24, "Krishna Kumar (Engineering)" < > krishna...@flipkart.com> a écrit : > > > > I found the source of the problem. One of the backends was being shared > > with another person who was testing iptables rules/tunnel setups, and > > that might have caused some connection drops. I have now removed that > > backend from my setup and use dedicated systems, after which the original > > configuration without specifying source port is working, no connection > flaps > > now. > > > > Thanks, > > - Krishna Kumar > > How much performance do you have now? > > Baptiste >
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
Le 7 mai 2015 04:24, "Krishna Kumar (Engineering)" a écrit : > > I found the source of the problem. One of the backends was being shared > with another person who was testing iptables rules/tunnel setups, and > that might have caused some connection drops. I have now removed that > backend from my setup and use dedicated systems, after which the original > configuration without specifying source port is working, no connection flaps > now. > > Thanks, > - Krishna Kumar How much performance do you have now? Baptiste
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
I found the source of the problem. One of the backends was being shared with another person who was testing iptables rules/tunnel setups, and that might have caused some connection drops. I have now removed that backend from my setup and use dedicated systems, after which the original configuration without specifying source port is working, no connection flaps now. Thanks, - Krishna Kumar On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 12:03:12PM +0200, Baptiste wrote: > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) > > wrote: > > > Hi Baptiste, > > > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Baptiste wrote: > > >> > > >> > Also, during the test, the status of various backend's change often > > >> > between > > >> > OK to DOWN, > > >> > and then gets back to OK almost immediately: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > www-backend,nginx-3,0,0,0,10,3,184,23843,96517588,,0,,27,0,0,180,DOWN > > >> > > > >> > > 1/2,1,1,0,7,3,6,39,,7,3,1,,220,,2,0,,37,L4CON,,0,0,184,0,0,0,0,00,0,6,Out > > >> > of local source ports on the system,,0,2,3,92, > > >> > > >> this error is curious with the type of traffic your generating! > > >> Maybe you should let HAProxy manage the source ports on behalf of the > > >> server. > > >> Try adding the "source 0.0.0.0:1024-65535" parameter in your backend > > >> description. > > > > > > > > > Yes, this has fixed the issue - I no longer get state change after an > hour > > > testing. > > > The performance didn't improve though. I will check the sysctl > parameters > > > that > > > were different between haproxy/nginx nodes. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > - Krishna Kumar > > > > > > You have to investigate why this issue happened. > > I mean, it is not normal. As Pavlos mentionned, you connection rate is > > very low, since you do keep alive and you opened only 500 ports. > > > > Wait, I know, could you share the keep-alive connection from your nginx > servers? > > By default, they close connections every 100 requests... This might be > > the root of the issue. > > But even then there is no reason why the local ports would remain in use. > There definitely is a big problem. It also explains why servers are going > up and down all the time and errors are reported. > > Willy > >
Education Industry 2015
Hi, I wanted to know if you would be interested in acquiring any Educational Industry leads for your sales and marketing purposes. We maintain almost all the lists within the Education Industry, below are a few lists for your review. College Lists K-12 Schools and Personnel Lists College Faculty Lists Other Key School Personnel Lists Schools Early Childhood Education Schools Teachers (by Subjects) Day Care Centers If interested or if you have any other lead requirements, no matter how niche your target is do reply with the below format, Target Audience: Target Geography: ___ Target Job Titles: Please confirm the above and I shall get back to you with counts, list details and a sample file for your review accordingly. Alternatively how does your calendar look this week for a brief 5 minute phone conversation to discuss your process and whether there's room for improvement? Await your reply. ___ Best Regards, Celia Stewart P: 302-752-4265 Lead Manager If you don't wish to receive our newsletters, reply back with "EXCLUDE ME" in subject line.
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
On 06/05/2015 12:03 μμ, Baptiste wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) > wrote: >> Hi Baptiste, >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Baptiste wrote: >>> Also, during the test, the status of various backend's change often between OK to DOWN, and then gets back to OK almost immediately: www-backend,nginx-3,0,0,0,10,3,184,23843,96517588,,0,,27,0,0,180,DOWN 1/2,1,1,0,7,3,6,39,,7,3,1,,220,,2,0,,37,L4CON,,0,0,184,0,0,0,0,00,0,6,Out of local source ports on the system,,0,2,3,92, >>> >>> this error is curious with the type of traffic your generating! >>> Maybe you should let HAProxy manage the source ports on behalf of the >>> server. >>> Try adding the "source 0.0.0.0:1024-65535" parameter in your backend >>> description. >> >> >> Yes, this has fixed the issue - I no longer get state change after an hour >> testing. >> The performance didn't improve though. I will check the sysctl parameters >> that >> were different between haproxy/nginx nodes. >> >> Thanks, >> - Krishna Kumar > > > You have to investigate why this issue happened. > I mean, it is not normal. As Pavlos mentionned, you connection rate is > very low, since you do keep alive and you opened only 500 ports. > > Wait, I know, could you share the keep-alive connection from your nginx > servers? > By default, they close connections every 100 requests... This might be > the root of the issue. > That reminds that in my setup I configured nginx backend servers to have keepalive_requests 10. You need to increase the keepalive limit because stress tool use keepalive as well. So, let's say you have 500 TCP concurrent connections open and stress test does 5M requests in total, you need to allow 10K keepalived http requests on nginx . I have a suggestion, rerun the test with haproxy and on your nginx server, and nginx on your haproxy server. Cheers, Pavlos signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 12:03:12PM +0200, Baptiste wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) > wrote: > > Hi Baptiste, > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Baptiste wrote: > >> > >> > Also, during the test, the status of various backend's change often > >> > between > >> > OK to DOWN, > >> > and then gets back to OK almost immediately: > >> > > >> > > >> > www-backend,nginx-3,0,0,0,10,3,184,23843,96517588,,0,,27,0,0,180,DOWN > >> > > >> > 1/2,1,1,0,7,3,6,39,,7,3,1,,220,,2,0,,37,L4CON,,0,0,184,0,0,0,0,00,0,6,Out > >> > of local source ports on the system,,0,2,3,92, > >> > >> this error is curious with the type of traffic your generating! > >> Maybe you should let HAProxy manage the source ports on behalf of the > >> server. > >> Try adding the "source 0.0.0.0:1024-65535" parameter in your backend > >> description. > > > > > > Yes, this has fixed the issue - I no longer get state change after an hour > > testing. > > The performance didn't improve though. I will check the sysctl parameters > > that > > were different between haproxy/nginx nodes. > > > > Thanks, > > - Krishna Kumar > > > You have to investigate why this issue happened. > I mean, it is not normal. As Pavlos mentionned, you connection rate is > very low, since you do keep alive and you opened only 500 ports. > > Wait, I know, could you share the keep-alive connection from your nginx > servers? > By default, they close connections every 100 requests... This might be > the root of the issue. But even then there is no reason why the local ports would remain in use. There definitely is a big problem. It also explains why servers are going up and down all the time and errors are reported. Willy
Re: Couple of questions on future support
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Baptiste wrote: Hi Baptiste, you can do it natively with maps and conversion of maxmind ip ranges > into HAProxy's subnets. > Thank you, using this information, I was able to find your article: http://blog.haproxy.com/2012/07/02/use-geoip-database-within-haproxy/ Let me see what is required and respond. Regards, - Krishna Kumar
Re: [haproxy]: Performance of haproxy-to-4-nginx vs direct-to-nginx
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) wrote: > Hi Baptiste, > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Baptiste wrote: >> >> > Also, during the test, the status of various backend's change often >> > between >> > OK to DOWN, >> > and then gets back to OK almost immediately: >> > >> > >> > www-backend,nginx-3,0,0,0,10,3,184,23843,96517588,,0,,27,0,0,180,DOWN >> > >> > 1/2,1,1,0,7,3,6,39,,7,3,1,,220,,2,0,,37,L4CON,,0,0,184,0,0,0,0,00,0,6,Out >> > of local source ports on the system,,0,2,3,92, >> >> this error is curious with the type of traffic your generating! >> Maybe you should let HAProxy manage the source ports on behalf of the >> server. >> Try adding the "source 0.0.0.0:1024-65535" parameter in your backend >> description. > > > Yes, this has fixed the issue - I no longer get state change after an hour > testing. > The performance didn't improve though. I will check the sysctl parameters > that > were different between haproxy/nginx nodes. > > Thanks, > - Krishna Kumar You have to investigate why this issue happened. I mean, it is not normal. As Pavlos mentionned, you connection rate is very low, since you do keep alive and you opened only 500 ports. Wait, I know, could you share the keep-alive connection from your nginx servers? By default, they close connections every 100 requests... This might be the root of the issue. The configuration I sent you just tells haproxy to manage himself the source ports on behalf of the kernel. It is much more efficient for this task. We never enable it, since in most cases, kernel is good enough. Baptiste
Re: [SPAM] backup option doesn't seem to work
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Yves Van Wert wrote: > Hi list, > > i've created this backend config : > > backend weblogic-tpc >mode http >balance roundrobin >cookie SERVERID insert indirect nocache >option httpclose >option forwardfor >option allbackups >server server01n 10.130.101.5:9003 check cookie server01n weight 10 >server server02n 10.130.101.6:9003 check cookie server02n weight 10 >server server05n 10.130.101.1:9003 check cookie server05n weight 15 >server server06n 10.130.101.1:9004 check cookie server06n weight 15 >server server07n 10.130.101.1:9005 check cookie server07n weight 15 >server server03n 10.130.101.7:9003 check cookie server03n weight 10 > backup >server server04n 10.130.101.8:9003 check cookie server04n weight 10 > backup > > > > after starting haproxy i notice in the logfile that connections are also > being sent to server03 & 04. Any idea on how this is possible ? > > thanks > Yves Hi Yves, Please share you logs as well :) Baptiste
Re: Couple of questions on future support
Hi all, HTTP/2 will be support in 1.7, if not in 1.6 :) It's a long journey, you know :) Krishna, Could you elaborate more about the geo location stuf? you can do it natively with maps and conversion of maxmind ip ranges into HAProxy's subnets. What feature would you like, what missing stuff do you have here, please share your information. Baptiste On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Danijel Starman wrote: > Hi, > > I believe Willy mentioned that HTTP/2 support is being worked on, I > assume for 1.6 version. > -- > *blap* > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> 1. Is there any plan to support HTTP/2? Any estimate on the amount of >> work/time >> it would take to implement? >> >> 2. Is there any plan to have support for Geolocation (other than what is >> mentioned >> in the homepage)? >> >> Thanks, >> - Krishna Kumar >> >
Re: Couple of questions on future support
Hi, I believe Willy mentioned that HTTP/2 support is being worked on, I assume for 1.6 version. -- *blap* On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Krishna Kumar (Engineering) wrote: > Hi all, > > 1. Is there any plan to support HTTP/2? Any estimate on the amount of > work/time > it would take to implement? > > 2. Is there any plan to have support for Geolocation (other than what is > mentioned > in the homepage)? > > Thanks, > - Krishna Kumar >
Couple of questions on future support
Hi all, 1. Is there any plan to support HTTP/2? Any estimate on the amount of work/time it would take to implement? 2. Is there any plan to have support for Geolocation (other than what is mentioned in the homepage)? Thanks, - Krishna Kumar
