Re: [GIT PULL horms-rebased7] pidfile fixes

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:39:19AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 02:33:23PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Willy, > > > > While looking over the horms-rebased7 branch of > > http://git.1wt.eu/git/haproxy.git/ I noticed a few problems in the pidfile > > han

Re: [GIT PULL horms-rebased7] pidfile fixes

Hi Simon, On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 02:33:23PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > Hi Willy, > > While looking over the horms-rebased7 branch of > http://git.1wt.eu/git/haproxy.git/ I noticed a few problems in the pidfile > handling. I think that the first patch may well fix a bug that I > introduced, whi

[PATCH 2/2] Always use the pidfile returned by prepare()

prepare() will open and truncate pidfile if a pid file is to be used. This is a bug which is a hangover from factoring out changes to keep the pidfile open in master processes. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman --- src/haproxy.c |6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --

[PATCH 1/2] Close pidfile when it is no longer needed.

There is no need to keep the pidfile open in non-master processes. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman --- src/haproxy.c |5 + 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/haproxy.c b/src/haproxy.c index 8780714..46e4ae9 100644 --- a/src/haproxy.c +++ b/src/haproxy.c @@ -15

[GIT PULL horms-rebased7] pidfile fixes

Hi Willy, While looking over the horms-rebased7 branch of http://git.1wt.eu/git/haproxy.git/ I noticed a few problems in the pidfile handling. I think that the first patch may well fix a bug that I introduced, while the second two seem to be artifacts of your subsequent refactoring to remove my ho

Re: RE: x-forwarded-for and server side keep alive

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:59:19 +0200, Guillaume Castagnino wrote: option http-server-close is sufficient and allow client side keep-alive. Moreover, to achive a good load balancing, server side keepalice NEEDS to be disabled (with http-server-close option) since mutiple connections inside one ke

Re: RE: x-forwarded-for and server side keep alive

option http-server-close is sufficient and allow client side keep-alive. Moreover, to achive a good load balancing, server side keepalice NEEDS to be disabled (with http-server-close option) since mutiple connections inside one keep-alive session are not balanced... Client side keep alive does

RE: x-forwarded-for and server side keep alive

From the documentation It is important to note that as long as HAProxy does not support keep-alive connections, only the first request of a connection will receive the header. For this reason, it is important to ensure that "option httpclose" is set when using this option. Examples :

x-forwarded-for and server side keep alive

Hi there, I browsed the list to look for an answer to this question, without success, so I hope you can help me on this. I want to use Haproxy in front of Tomcat. I need to get the client's IP, so I logically activated 'option forwardfor', which works fine. I also want server-side keepalive

Re: Tproxy with multiple interfaces

Hi Brian, > you would then need to setup ipmasq in iptables to make the haproxy server properly route the packets out to the internet and masq the source IP as the haproxy eth0 IP Unfortunately this wouldn't work, as packets route in to the web servers through another router, and would route out

RE: Tproxy with multiple interfaces

Randy, I can't speak to how your other environment works, as it seems suspicious that it works the way you describe in fully transparent mode but I also can't speak to the cttproxy patch as I've never used it. When you set the default gateway on the webservers to the haproxy eth1 interface you

Re: Tproxy with multiple interfaces

Hi Brian, Thanks for the response. I had previously tried this, but setting the default gateway on the web servers to point to the HAProxy server's eth1 results in the web servers losing all external connectivity, as the source address is always a private address. root@web:~# ping -c 5 8.8.8.8 P

RE: Tproxy with multiple interfaces

Randy, The problem is the gateway on the backend webservers needs to be set as a VIP (or eth1 interface) on the HAproxy servers on their private interface (assuming you have two HAproxy servers and are using heartbeat for failover). It looks like from your routing table that eth0 on the webserve

Subscribe

HAproxy 1.5-dev SSL-ID troubles

Hello! I have configured a Cisco CSS devices and had some experieces about them. Then I thinked that I try HAproxy development versioon that suppots stiky SSL and I installed debian 6.0.1 x86_64 into VMware ESXi vitrualmahine and installed HAproxy 1.5-dev6 . After that I tried to create HApr

Tproxy with multiple interfaces

Hi, I'm trying to setup an HAProxy instance to transparently load balance a group of web servers. The HAProxy server and web servers each have two interfaces; eth0 as the public interface and eth1 the private. I'm trying to configure the load balancer to accept requests on port 80 on eth0 and tran

Re: using haproxy for https

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Joseph Hardeman wrote: > HI, > > Considering these are for a customer and they have already purchased their > certs, I don't want to go through the hassle of converting them and causing > them any issues. I don't see how this would inconvenience anybody, it is a

http-check send-state / no header

hi, i set the send-state, but the backends didnt receive the header. I cant find the error. listen XX80 99.12.24.5:80 modehttp source 192.168.1.155:0 balance roundrobin timeout server 4000 timeout client 4000 timeout connect 8000 maxc

Re: Rate Limiting Blog Link

Excellent point, Jonathan. So, would having HAProxy support/implement HTTPS be the only way to allow HTTPS rate limiting (in HTTPS only and HTTP and HTTPS mixed environments)? As for my other point. Have you looked at the sample configuration on http://blog.serverfault.com/post/1016491873/ It's