Re: http-response set-header is unreliable

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 12:08:37AM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Willy, > > Am 02.05.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > Nice one, though I'd argue that sites which do this know that they > > are manipulating large contents (it's visible in the config file and > > sometimes they are the ones

Re: Priority based queuing

On 2018/5/2 16:29, Patrick Hemmer wrote: > > > On 2018/5/2 13:22, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: >>> Can you elaborate on what you're thinking of for a time-based queue? >>> >>> What I'm imagining you mean is that you would write a rule to

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR, lua/sockets, make lua tasks that are waiting for io suspend until woken up by the a corresponding event.

Hi guys, On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 12:58:55AM +0200, PiBa-NL wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Op 3-5-2018 om 0:26 schreef Tim Düsterhus: > > Pieter, > > > > Am 02.05.2018 um 23:54 schrieb PiBa-NL: > > > If commit message needs tweaking please feel free to do so :). > > > > > obviously not authoritative for

Re: Priority based queuing

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:29:33PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: > I think you're misunderstanding my design, as scoring wouldn't work like > this at all. If you give the gold class a score of 1000 (where higher > number means higher priority), then the only thing that would get > processed before

1.8.8 lua, xref_get_peer_and_lock hang / 100% cpu usage after restarting haproxy a few times

Hi List, Sometimes after a few 'restarts' of haproxy 1.8.8 (using -sf parameter) one of the processes seems to get into a 'hanging' state consuming 100% cpu.. In this configuration i'm using 'nbthread 1' not sure if this is related to the corrupted task-tree from my other lua issue.?.

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR, lua/sockets, make lua tasks that are waiting for io suspend until woken up by the a corresponding event.

Hi Tim, Op 3-5-2018 om 0:26 schreef Tim Düsterhus: Pieter, Am 02.05.2018 um 23:54 schrieb PiBa-NL: If commit message needs tweaking please feel free to do so :). obviously not authoritative for this, but I noticed directly that the first line of your message is very long. It should

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR, lua/sockets, make lua tasks that are waiting for io suspend until woken up by the a corresponding event.

Pieter, Am 02.05.2018 um 23:54 schrieb PiBa-NL: > If commit message needs tweaking please feel free to do so :). > obviously not authoritative for this, but I noticed directly that the first line of your message is very long. It should generally be about 60 characters, otherwise it might get

Re: http-response set-header is unreliable

Willy, Am 02.05.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > Nice one, though I'd argue that sites which do this know that they > are manipulating large contents (it's visible in the config file and > sometimes they are the ones asking to relax the config parsing rules). > So they're also aware of the

[PATCH] BUG/MINOR, lua/sockets, make lua tasks that are waiting for io suspend until woken up by the a corresponding event.

Hi List, WiIly, Thierry, Emeric, Tried a little patch for my 100% cpu usage issue. https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg29762.html It stops the cpu usage reported in above thread.. Just wondering if there are any culprits that might now 'hang' a lua applet instead.?. I think

Re: Priority based queuing

On 2018/5/2 13:22, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: >> Can you elaborate on what you're thinking of for a time-based queue? >> >> What I'm imagining you mean is that you would write a rule to set the >> max queue time, and haproxy would

Re: Priority based queuing

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: > Can you elaborate on what you're thinking of for a time-based queue? > > What I'm imagining you mean is that you would write a rule to set the > max queue time, and haproxy would insert it into the queue sorting on > TIME_NOW() +

Re: Priority based queuing

On 2018/5/2 11:04, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:34:14PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: >> Would it be possible to add priority based queuing to haproxy? By this I >> mean that when a server/backend is full (maxconn), that incoming >> requests would be added to the queue in a

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: threads: Fix the sync point for more than 32 threads

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:36:24PM +0200, Christopher Faulet wrote: > Hi Willy, > > Here is a patch to fix the sync point from more than 32 threads. It is an > obvious bug once found. But I had a hard time debugging it :) Ah interesting one, indeed! You're lucky to have that many cores in your

[PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: threads: Fix the sync point for more than 32 threads

Hi Willy, Here is a patch to fix the sync point from more than 32 threads. It is an obvious bug once found. But I had a hard time debugging it :) Thanks, -- Christopher Faulet >From 49fe27fda17418b9d8f62295d8f7b066bd2b57b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christopher Faulet

Re: HAProxy multiple key type support - bug/feature (?) with DH parameters

Hello, I resume this mail from Olivier because I think I meet the same problem. Like him, I need to use specific DH parameters. For this, I simply use the ability to add these DH parameters in the certificate file. These DH parameters are well taken into account if I specify the exact path of

Re: Priority based queuing

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 09:34:14PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: > Would it be possible to add priority based queuing to haproxy? By this I > mean that when a server/backend is full (maxconn), that incoming > requests would be added to the queue in a custom order. The idea here is > that when the

Fwd: [PATCH] MINOR: Add server name & puid to LUA Server class.

Hi Thierry, when you have a moment, could you please give a quick look at these patches from Patrick so that I know if I can merge them or not ? There are 2 other ones on the list. Thanks, Willy On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 02:23:48PM -0400, Patrick Hemmer wrote: > --- > doc/lua-api/index.rst | 8

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR: checks: Fix check->health computation for flapping, servers

Hi Christopher, On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Christopher Faulet wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a patch to fix an old bug in health-checks. As stated in the commit > message, it must be backported to HAProxy 1.5 and newer. Interesting one! And I'm pretty sure I've already met it (the

[PATCH] BUG/MINOR: checks: Fix check->health computation for flapping, servers

Hi, Here is a patch to fix an old bug in health-checks. As stated in the commit message, it must be backported to HAProxy 1.5 and newer. Thanks, -- Christopher Faulet >From 913d6d9adda3420b79b4eadb1c4b847519dc88d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christopher Faulet Date:

Re: http-response set-header is unreliable

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 05:10:19PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Willy, > > Am 01.05.2018 um 06:28 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > >> It might make sense to enlarge the rewrite buffer reservation by > >> default. > > > > We used to have this a long time ago, the maxrewrite value used to > > default to