On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 12:44:20AM +0500, ??? wrote:
> did we forget about it ?
Oops you're right, sorry. Now applied.
Willy
unsubscribe
did we forget about it ?
сб, 27 июн. 2020 г. в 11:10, Илья Шипицин :
> Hello,
>
> slow tests fail from time to time like
> https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6319998954110976
>
> let us exclude them
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ilya Shipitcin
>
I was lucky with google cpu profiler
https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools
it could summarize cpu time per function.
can you try it ?
пт, 3 июл. 2020 г. в 23:20, Willy Tarreau :
> Hi Igor,
>
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 12:52:35PM +0800, Igor Pav wrote:
> > Hi William, Tried but still the same
Hi Igor,
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 12:52:35PM +0800, Igor Pav wrote:
> Hi William, Tried but still the same ;(
That's bad. Do you know if your servers actually support 0rtt, and if
this 0rtt currently works between haproxy and the servers ? Because by
having the retry on 0rtt, there are two things
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 08:51:24PM +0700, Hai Dang Nguyen wrote:
> Dear Haproxy team,
> Currently, I conduct a small experiment with haproxy. I upload a 20G file
> to haproxy and realize that the measured bandwidth is only about 70% -75%
> of the direct upload to the backend. All of my
Hi Takeshi,
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 11:21:59AM +, mizuta.take...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
>
> Thank you for discussing issue#670 on github.
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/670
>
> I have attached a patch that resolves the issue.
> (I have changed the config keyword
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 02:25:33PM +0200, Jerome Magnin wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > Hi List,
> >
> > we've just noticed and confirmed some strange change in behavior, depending
> > on whether the request is made with HTTP 1.x
Hi Tim,
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 02:06:34PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus, WoltLab GmbH wrote:
> Willy,
>
> find the patch attached.
Looks good, now applied, thank you!
Willy
Hi Christian,
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> we've just noticed and confirmed some strange change in behavior, depending
> on whether the request is made with HTTP 1.x or 2.x.
> [...]
> That also affects ACLs like url*/path* and probably
Willy,
find the patch attached.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Developer WoltLab GmbH
--
WoltLab GmbH
Nedlitzer Str. 27B
14469 Potsdam
Tel.: +49 331 96784338
duester...@woltlab.com
www.woltlab.com
Managing director:
Marcel Werk
AG Potsdam HRB 26795 P
>From
Dear maintainers,
Thank you for discussing issue#670 on github.
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/670
I have attached a patch that resolves the issue.
(I have changed the config keyword from the commit on github.)
Would you please comment on the patch?
Documentation and test code will
Hi List,
we've just noticed and confirmed some strange change in behavior,
depending on whether the request is made with HTTP 1.x or 2.x.
Steps to reproduce:
HAProxy 2.1.x
A simple http frontend, including h2 + logging
tail -f /var/log/haproxy.log|grep curl
curl -s https://example.com -o
Returning on the topic, i'm trying a "smarter" solution trying to implement
a leaky bucket with a window, as nginx is doing.
what i've to do is to store per user the request per minute in current
minute and previous minute. i've done in a lua script with a matrix, but
i'm quite sure it's not the
14 matches
Mail list logo
