RE: Keep-alive and websocket connections
Hi, Thanks for your suggestion, Lukas. For my own understanding, are you saying that there is no difference between having http-keep-alive and having http-server-close to a backend server once websocket connection to that server is establish, and both settings allow for establishing websocket connection perfectly. Yes, thats what I'm saying. So is there any advantage of having http-keep-alive to a websocket backend? It doesn't make any difference if this is a pure websocket backend, because the session is always upgraded to tcp mode after the first transaction. If the traffic is mixed, then http-keep-alive has obvious advantages for the non-websocket traffic. Regards, Lukas
RE: Keep-alive and websocket connections
Hi, In the latest HAProxy 1.5 release (dev22), it is indicated that keep-alive is now enabled by default for both client and server sides. I have some questions regarding its use in the following scenario. I use HAProxy in front of an array of servers: one nginx for delivering static files, and the others being application servers. One of the application servers exclusively deals with websocket (or in the event of ws failure, switching to streaming) connections. Currently, I am using 'http-server-close' by default for all servers, but I think it'd be better to switch to 'http-keep-alive' for the nginx and keep 'http-server-close' for the websockets server. You can just default to http-keep-alive everywhere. HAProxy recognizes the upgrade headers and switches to TCP mode automatically [1]. Recognizing the upgrade in a HTTP transaction is possible with all modes expect tcp mode (of course) and (the pre-dev22 default) http tunnel mode [2]. Is this a correct setup? Thanks. It is, but you may as well simplify it with http-keep-alive on all sections. I don't see any advantage by configuring http-server-close on the websocket backend. Of course you should test this, before putting it in production. Regards, Lukas [1] http://blog.exceliance.fr/2012/11/07/websockets-load-balancing-with-haproxy/ [2] http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/configuration-1.5.html#4
Re: Keep-alive and websocket connections
Thanks for your suggestion, Lukas. For my own understanding, are you saying that there is no difference between having http-keep-alive and having http-server-close to a backend server once websocket connection to that server is establish, and both settings allow for establishing websocket connection perfectly. So is there any advantage of having http-keep-alive to a websocket backend? On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi, In the latest HAProxy 1.5 release (dev22), it is indicated that keep-alive is now enabled by default for both client and server sides. I have some questions regarding its use in the following scenario. I use HAProxy in front of an array of servers: one nginx for delivering static files, and the others being application servers. One of the application servers exclusively deals with websocket (or in the event of ws failure, switching to streaming) connections. Currently, I am using 'http-server-close' by default for all servers, but I think it'd be better to switch to 'http-keep-alive' for the nginx and keep 'http-server-close' for the websockets server. You can just default to http-keep-alive everywhere. HAProxy recognizes the upgrade headers and switches to TCP mode automatically [1]. Recognizing the upgrade in a HTTP transaction is possible with all modes expect tcp mode (of course) and (the pre-dev22 default) http tunnel mode [2]. Is this a correct setup? Thanks. It is, but you may as well simplify it with http-keep-alive on all sections. I don't see any advantage by configuring http-server-close on the websocket backend. Of course you should test this, before putting it in production. Regards, Lukas [1] http://blog.exceliance.fr/2012/11/07/websockets-load-balancing-with-haproxy/ [2] http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/configuration-1.5.html#4
