Hi John, Willy,
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 10:07 -0400, John Lauro wrote:
> Do you have haproxy between your web servers and the 3rd party? If not (ie:
> only to your servers), perhaps that is what you should do. Trying to
> throttle the maximum connections to your web servers sounds pointless give
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 18:26 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 05:52:50PM +0200, Bo??tjan Mer??un wrote:
> > Hi Willy
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 09:21 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > > why are you saying that ? Except for rare cases of huge bugs, a server
> > > is not li
Hi Willy
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 09:21 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> why are you saying that ? Except for rare cases of huge bugs, a server
> is not limited in requests per second. At full speed, it will simply use
> 100% of the CPU, which is why you bought it after all. When a server dies,
> it's
Hi Willy.
First, thank you for your answer.
> I really don't know why you're limiting on the number of requests
> per second. It is not the proper way to do this at all. In fact,
> you should *only* need to play with the server's maxconn parameter,
> as there should be no reason your servers woul
Dear haproxy list,
This message will be a bit longer, I hope that somebody will read it
though and give me some opinion.
I am testing HAProxy in our load-balanced environment, which now works
with keepalived and the main reason for trying HAProxy is connection
limiting and ACL, which keepalived do
5 matches
Mail list logo
