Willy,
Thank you very much for the follow-up.
For me, killing "idle" connections would be a lose. I've got a lot of
websocket connections open. In general, resetting a websocket is less than
optimal. Yes, I know the app should be resilient to a lost connection, but
often websocket apps are not w
Hi Apollon,
first, thank you for your feedback.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 09:21:58PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> On 19:18 Thu 02 Oct , Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > So my question is : what do you think about the current maintenance
> > release frequency ? Do you think we s
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 07:56:25PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> A segfault was reported with the introduction of the propagate_processes()
> function. It was caused when a use_backend rule was declared with a dynamic
> name, using a log-format string. The backend is not resolved during the
> configu
Hi Willy,
On 19:18 Thu 02 Oct , Willy Tarreau wrote:
> So my question is : what do you think about the current maintenance
> release frequency ? Do you think we should release more often, which
> also means that some people might upgrade for no good reason, or get
> used to miss versions ? Do
A segfault was reported with the introduction of the propagate_processes()
function. It was caused when a use_backend rule was declared with a dynamic
name, using a log-format string. The backend is not resolved during the
configuration, which lead to the segfault.
The patch prevents the process b
Hi all,
I'm realizing that it happens from time to time that I let some
patches sleep for a long time in the git repo of a maintenance branch.
In fact the reason is simple : if we fix something really important, I
still have it in mind and can rush a release (except recently where I
forgot about
Hi Cyril,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 06:56:09PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Then we're facing several segfault issues, because I still reproduce
> segfaults with a dynamic use_backend.
>
> #0 propagate_processes (from=from@entry=0x1c44160,
> to=0x655f656863616367) at src/cfgparse.c:5996
> 5996
Hi Willy,
Le 02/10/2014 11:18, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
Hi all,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote:
The issue happens because during the configuration parsing, a dynamic
use_backend can't resolve the backend and leaves the union structure as
a string (which is also free
On 2 Oct 2014, at 15:36, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>> Try (please ignore the tunnel test from my previous mail):
>>
>> frontend external
>> bind :80
>> acl DYN path_beg /events
>> use_backend backend_httpclose if DYN
>> default_backend test
>>
>> backend test
>> server test localhost:3000
>>
>> bac
On 02/10/2014 03:58 μμ, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:42:13PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>>
>>> Is it possible to bind both HTTP and HTTPS on the same port with haproxy.
>>> Something like this:
>>>
>>> frontend data-in
>>> mode http
>>> bind 0.0.0.0:8080
>>
> Try (please ignore the tunnel test from my previous mail):
>
> frontend external
> bind :80
> acl DYN path_beg /events
> use_backend backend_httpclose if DYN
> default_backend test
>
> backend test
> server test localhost:3000
>
> backend backend_httpclose
> option httpclose
> server test localho
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:42:13PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
>
> > Is it possible to bind both HTTP and HTTPS on the same port with haproxy.
> > Something like this:
> >
> > frontend data-in
> > mode http
> > bind 0.0.0.0:8080
> > crt if ssl /path/to/crt
> >
> > Obviously abov
Hi David,
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 08:07:30AM -0400, David Pollak wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I'm using HAProxy to choose among a series of dynamically allocated HTTP
> backends. Basically, a user goes to URL A and clicks on the "start my
> service" link. A new browser window/tab is popped up and they get
Hi guys,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:52:41PM +0100, JCM wrote:
> On 2 October 2014 00:49, Diana Hsu (ditsai) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to validate a statement in "option accept-invalid-http-request"
> > section:
> > http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/configuration-1.5.html#option%20ac
Lukas and Baptiste,
Thank you for your help!
Seems the HAProxy community is as excellent as HAProxy itself.
Rock on!
David
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Baptiste wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, David Pollak
> wrote:
> > Baptiste,
> >
> > Thanks for your help. I'm using HAProxy 1
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:53:49PM +0300, JCM wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 16:45, Gerd Müller wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > we want to stress test our system. We have 8 nodes behind the haproxy and 8
> > server infront to generate the request. Since we are using source based
> > loadbalancing I wou
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, David Pollak
wrote:
> Baptiste,
>
> Thanks for your help. I'm using HAProxy 1.5.4 and here's my config:
>
> global
> log /dev/loglocal0
> log /dev/loglocal1 notice
> chroot /var/lib/haproxy
> stats socket /run/haproxy/admin.sock mode 660 leve
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:57:18PM +0200, Klavs Klavsen wrote:
> Being able to handle if some server fubars itself (in my case one server
> suddenly had a stale NFS handle) - or if I f.ex. do automatic upgrades..
> it's very nice to just know that while the webserver (sometimes a
> tomcat - which
Hi Kyle,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:54:52PM -0400, Kyle Brandt wrote:
> I just noticed slim (session limit) - this seems like it might be what I'm
> looking for - can anyone confirm that this is all I need to monitor to make
> sure I don't hit this limit?
Yes that's it! You have it for frontends,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:37:17PM +0200, Kevin COUSIN wrote:
> Here is my conf :
>
> backend bk_OWAP-SSL
> timeout server 30s
> timeout connect 5s
> mode http
> balance roundrobin
>
> option forwardfor
> #option ssl-hello-chk
> option http
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 11:29:27AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 09:04:08PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> > Hi,
> > indeed after removing the option tcp-check line the checks now work as
> > expected. Thanks for the pointer.
>
> Hey guys, no, that's a bug. Look at w
On 2 October 2014 00:49, Diana Hsu (ditsai) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to validate a statement in "option accept-invalid-http-request"
> section:
> http://cbonte.github.io/haproxy-dconv/configuration-1.5.html#option%20accept-invalid-http-request
>
> By default, HAProxy complies with RFC2616 in
Hi Lukas, Diana,
> - haproxy is globally limited to 10240 connections
Actually, HAProxy is limited to 10240 "incoming" connections.
>From the documentation: "Proxies will stop accepting connections when
this limit is reached."
Baptiste
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 09:04:08PM +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Hi,
> indeed after removing the option tcp-check line the checks now work as
> expected. Thanks for the pointer.
Hey guys, no, that's a bug. Look at what is written in the documentation
(which should always be the reference t
Hi all,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le 22/09/2014 19:43, Lukas Tribus a écrit :
> >Hi Seri,
> >
> >
> >>This configuration works well in 1.5.4 release version and b53934e.
> >>but, in 5436afc commit, haproxy crashes frequently.
> >
> >Thanks for this
25 matches
Mail list logo
