On 17:30 Thu 12 Oct , William Lallemand wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:50:52PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> > Yes, there are. systemd will only perform a single operation on a
> > unit at a time, and will queue up the rest. When you inform systemd
> > that something (startup/re
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 05:50:52PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> >
> > One helpful feature I read in the documentation is the usage of the
> > sd_notify(.. "READY=1"). It can be useful for configuration files that
> > takes
> > time to process, for example those with a lot of ssl front
On 16:17 Thu 12 Oct , William Lallemand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:19:58PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> > The biggest issue here is that we are using a signal to trigger the
> > reload (which is a complex, non-atomic operation) and let things settle
> > on their ow
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:19:58PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> The biggest issue here is that we are using a signal to trigger the
> reload (which is a complex, non-atomic operation) and let things settle
> on their own. Systemd assumes that as soon as the signal is delivered
> (
Hello!
My name is Alex and I represent the website bestvpnrating.com
Our company is aimed at sponsoring your project. How can we be listed among
your sponsors?
Looking forward to your reply,
Best regards,
Alex Smith.
Hi guys
I know HW recommendations are based on the type of load.
We currently have a LB setup comprised of 3 Internet facing nodes used for
transactional requests.
Currently around 100k/s HTTP requests (+12k tcp session rate)
This is split in 3 nodes and avg session time is 1.5s for HTTP traffic.
Hi all,
On 22:01 Wed 04 Oct , Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Hello Moemen,
>
>
> Am 04.10.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Moemen MHEDHBI:
> >
> > I am wondering if this is actually an expected behaviour and if maybe
> > that restart/stop should just shutdown the process and its open connections.
> > I have mad
Hi Lukas, Willy,
Thanks for confimation.
We are running some security scan on haproxy urls and found that Ha-proxy
status URL has following vernability:
1. Cacheable SSL Page Found
2. Missing HTTP Strict-Transport-Security Header Query
To resolve this we need to update the http response with
8 matches
Mail list logo