Hi,
please do not bother ay further about this. I had an iptables rate limit of 25
SYN requests per second configured.
Sorry for wasting your time.
Stefan
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 20:35, Stefan Sticht wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry I missed to tell details: haproxy and webservers are running Ubuntu
Hi Stefan
Stefan Sticht wrote:
> I also can test the webserver directly bypassing the haproxy completely
> (apache2.4 on webserver has "KeepAlive Off” configured)
> $ ab -v 1 -c 10 -n 1000 http://10.27.100.45/test/index.html | grep -e
> Requests -e Complete -e Failed
> Complete requests: 1000
Hi,
sorry I missed to tell details: haproxy and webservers are running Ubuntu
16.04.3 LTS
I am testing HA-Proxy version 1.6.3 2015/12/25 and HA-Proxy version
1.7.8-1ppa1~xenial 2017/07/09
I also can test the webserver directly bypassing the haproxy completely
(apache2.4 on webserver has "KeepA
Hi,
I need help with my haproxy config. I have been asked to disable keepalive in
haproxy.
As soon as I use "option forceclose” the requests per second rate mesured with
apachebench
goes down form like 1000 requests per second to 25 requests per second.
frontend w-test-kon
bind *:8000
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:43:30AM -0400, Mark Staudinger wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:32:01 -0400, Olivier Houchard
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:28:52AM -0400, Mark Staudinger wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:47:32 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:32:01 -0400, Olivier Houchard
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:28:52AM -0400, Mark Staudinger wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:47:32 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
wrote:
>
> > On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:40, Mark Staudinger
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:35:05 -0400
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:28:52AM -0400, Mark Staudinger wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:47:32 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:40, Mark Staudinger
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:35:05 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > He
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:47:32 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
wrote:
On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:40, Mark Staudinger
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:35:05 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
wrote:
Hello,
are you installing haproxy form FreeBSD ports?
I just tried your configuration and it works as you ex
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:47:32 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
wrote:
Strange. I am testing on FreeBSD-10-stable though.
May be you add return code check for cpuset_setaffinity() and log
possible error?
That might be relevant. My FreeBSD-10.0 test server does also exhibit the
expected behavior
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:40, Mark Staudinger wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:35:05 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> are you installing haproxy form FreeBSD ports?
>>
>> I just tried your configuration and it works as you expect.
>>
>> If you are building haproxy by hand
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:35:05 -0400, Dmitry Sivachenko
wrote:
Hello,
are you installing haproxy form FreeBSD ports?
I just tried your configuration and it works as you expect.
If you are building haproxy by hand, add USE_CPU_AFFINITY=1 parameter to
make manually. FreeBSD port do that for
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:24, Mark Staudinger wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Running HAProxy-1.7.8 on FreeBSD-11.0. Working with nbproc=2 to separate
> HTTP and HTTPS portions of the config.
Hello,
are you installing haproxy form FreeBSD ports?
I just tried your configuration and it works as you
Hi Folks,
Running HAProxy-1.7.8 on FreeBSD-11.0. Working with nbproc=2 to separate
HTTP and HTTPS portions of the config.
Given the following config:
global
nbproc 2
cpu-map 1 2-8
cpu-map 2 7-14
After starting HAProxy, there are, as expected, two processes running.
Hi,
Would you be interested in a unique list of Top decision makers mention below
for your upcoming marketing and strategic moves?
Titles: CTO, CIO, CEO, Chief/Head/VP/Director/Manager of IT, Mobility,
Telecommunication, Infrastructure, Security, Networking and more.
List available by Technol
Dear Support,
We are using HA-Proxy version 1.8-dev1-7b67726 on four servers. To handle
the DDOS attacks, we have configured sticky-table rules.
The issue is, the same configuration is working on 3 servers but not on one
server. All the server packages,haproxy version and configuration file is
s
Hi there,
Has this bug fix now in 1.6.13 or 1.7.8 ?
We have confirmed this bug still exists in 1.6.3.
Thanks :-)
--
Best Regards
BaiYang
baiy...@gmail.com
http://baiy.cn
< END OF EMAIL >
From: baiyang
Date: 2015-12-03 18:44
To: Willy Tarreau
CC: CyrilBonté; Lukas Trib
Hi,
On my understanding, "globle.maxconn", "backend.maxconn", "backend.fullconn"
and "stick-table" all use the per-process semantics, right?
E.g.: If nbproc = 9 and we have this directive in a frontend or backend:
"stick-table type ip size 1m expire 1m store
conn_cur,conn_rate(10s),http_req_ra
17 matches
Mail list logo