Thanks. Am talking about the weights , if one server (x) assigned with
weight 125 and other server (y) with weight 12 ( added twice in the file) ,
we see x is getting half of the traffic compared to y. that means weigt has
no affects here?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Willy Tarreau
On 03.03.2014 21:31, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:10:51PM +0100, Lukas Tribus wrote:
Lets set IP_FREEBIND on IPv6 sockets as well, this works since Linux
3.3
and doesn't require CAP_NET_ADMIN privileges (IPV6_TRANSPARENT does).
This allows unprivileged users to bind to
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:20:32PM +0530, vijeesh vijayan wrote:
Thanks. Am talking about the weights , if one server (x) assigned with
weight 125 and other server (y) with weight 12 ( added twice in the file) ,
we see x is getting half of the traffic compared to y. that means weigt has
no
Hi Sander,
Patch applied, thank you Lukas!
I will test the patch. Stupid question, but is it really supported
from 3.3 and higher? A quick test with dev22 yesterday seemed to be
working but I didn't put any traffic through it. It was late so I
didn't give it enough attention ;-)
Just
This distribution happens only when server x and y has same number of open
connections?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 02:20:32PM +0530, vijeesh vijayan wrote:
Thanks. Am talking about the weights , if one server (x) assigned with
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:50:04PM +0530, vijeesh vijayan wrote:
This distribution happens only when server x and y has same number of open
connections?
no, the distribution happens all the time. To make it simpler to understand,
imagine that you have weight=1 for all servers. Haproxy will then
Thanks. please check my last reply
Thanks. Am talking about the weights , if one server (x) assigned with
weight 125 and other server (y) with weight 12 ( added twice in the file) ,
we see x is getting half of the traffic compared to y. that means weigt has
no affects here?
in this case ,
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:27:03PM +0530, vijeesh vijayan wrote:
Thanks. please check my last reply
Thanks. Am talking about the weights , if one server (x) assigned with
weight 125 and other server (y) with weight 12 ( added twice in the file) ,
we see x is getting half of the traffic
Hello,
I'm maintain postgresql cluster with streaming replication for php-based
webapp. And for a few days I'm trying to get rid of errors in my setup:
Application serverDB server
| PHP - pgbouncer - haproxy | - | postgresql |
pgbouncer pools connections from php
Hello,
Is this a known bug in HAProxy 1.5?
When I use 0.0.0.0 or * as server address for a certain host, HAProxy
crashes with a oom_killer log. This is what is in the man page:
server
...
Address “0.0.0.0″ or “*” has a special meaning.
It indicates that the connection will be forwarded to the
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:40:48 +0100
Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:12:27PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
Hi,
Im not sure if this is the exact issue that Anup was having, and maybe
i'm hijacking his thread, if so i'm sorry for that, but when try to
check how
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:51:56PM +0100, Thierry FOURNIER wrote:
The match bin get the configuration string 474554 and convert it as
the binary sequence GET. The match str get the configuration string
GET and use it as is.
The fetch req.payload() returns a binary content. When you try to
Hi,
Hello,
I'm maintain postgresql cluster with streaming replication for
php-based webapp. And for a few days I'm trying to get rid of errors in
my setup:
Application serverDB server
| PHP - pgbouncer - haproxy | - | postgresql |
pgbouncer pools
Hi Fred,
Is this a known bug in HAProxy 1.5?
When I use 0.0.0.0 or * as server address for a certain host, HAProxy
crashes with a oom_killer log.
Thats certainly not expected. Does the OOM conditional really come
from HAProxy?
server
...
Address “0.0.0.0″ or “*” has a special
Willy,
Exactly right, but it is a common misunderstanding.
Out of interest, How hard would it be to get a least connection
scheduler to take account of cumulated connections?
It would/might make it far more useful for HTTP.. Off the top of my
head I think least conns in LVS is based on
Ok seems to work now knowing this. Though it hase some side affects.
i could now match param=TEST using the following acl:
acl PAYLOADcheck req.payload(0,0) -m reg -i 706172616d3D54455354
Case insensitive matching works 'perfectly', but for the hex code (see
the D and d above), but doesnt
The haproxy log contains the original request, not the rewritten one. If
you want to see the rewritten URL you need to look at the backend server
which is receiving the request.
-Patrick
*From: *Steve Phillips
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:55:47AM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote:
Ok seems to work now knowing this. Though it hase some side affects.
i could now match param=TEST using the following acl:
acl PAYLOADcheck req.payload(0,0) -m reg -i 706172616d3D54455354
Case insensitive matching works 'perfectly',
18 matches
Mail list logo
