On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:34:45AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> And after performing the same tests with the patch applied, I can confirm I
> don't reproduce the issue anymore ;-)
Cool, thanks for your feedback Cyril!
Willy
Hi all,
Le 21/12/2017 à 15:25, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Emeric Brun wrote:
Hi All,
This bug should be fixed using this patch (patch on dev, abd should be
backported in 1.8).
now applied to both branches,, thanks!
Willy
And after performing the same
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:53:07PM +0100, Emeric Brun wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This bug should be fixed using this patch (patch on dev, abd should be
> backported in 1.8).
now applied to both branches,, thanks!
Willy
Hi All,
This bug should be fixed using this patch (patch on dev, abd should be
backported in 1.8).
R,
Emeric
On 12/21/2017 10:42 AM, Greg Nolle wrote:
> Thanks guys! I should be able to test the new version this weekend if you are
> able to issue it before then.
>
> Best regards,
> Greg
>
>
Thanks guys! I should be able to test the new version this weekend if you
are able to issue it before then.
Best regards,
Greg
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:04:11AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Le 20/12/2017 à 22:42, Greg N
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:04:11AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Le 20/12/2017 à 22:42, Greg Nolle a écrit :
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Thanks for the info but I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything here that
> > would affect the issue I'm seeing, and by the way the docs don't
> > indicate tha
Hi Greg,
Le 20/12/2017 à 22:42, Greg Nolle a écrit :
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the info but I’m afraid I’m not seeing anything here that
would affect the issue I’m seeing, and by the way the docs don’t
indicate that the cookie names have to match the server names.
First, don't worry about the c
te:
> >>>> Hi Greg
> >>>>
> >>>> You say traffic still goes to the real server when in MAINT mode,
> >>>> Assuming you mean DRAIN Mode and not HALTED then this is expected.
> >>>>
> >>>> Existing connections st
to the real server when in MAINT mode,
>>>> Assuming you mean DRAIN Mode and not HALTED then this is expected.
>>>>
>>>> Existing connections still goto a server while DRAINING but no new
>>>> connections will get there.
>>>>
>>>> If th
>>>
>>> Andruw Smalley
>>>
>>> Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
>>>
>>> www.loadbalancer.org
>>> +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
>>> asmal...@loadbalancer.org
>>>
>>> Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog
>&g
8 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
>> asmal...@loadbalancer.org
>>
>> Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog
>>
>>
>> On 20 December 2017 at 20:26, Greg Nolle wrote:
>>> When cookie persistence is used, it seems that the status of the
>>> se
rg Ltd.
>
> www.loadbalancer.org
> +1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
> asmal...@loadbalancer.org
>
> Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog
>
>
> On 20 December 2017 at 20:26, Greg Nolle wrote:
>> When cookie persistence is used, it seems that the status of th
.
Andruw Smalley
Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
www.loadbalancer.org
+1 888 867 9504 / +44 (0)330 380 1064
asmal...@loadbalancer.org
Leave a Review | Deployment Guides | Blog
On 20 December 2017 at 20:26, Greg Nolle wrote:
> When cookie persistence is used, it seems that the status of the
> serv
When cookie persistence is used, it seems that the status of the
servers in the backend is ignored in v1.8.1. I try marking as MAINT a
backend server for which my browser has been given a cookie but
subsequent requests still go to that server (as verified in the
stats). The same issue happens when
Hi Shawn,
Le 15/01/2015 01:59, Shawn Heisey a écrit :
I'm trying to ensure that multiple connections from the same browser end
up on the same back end server, and having lots of trouble. All my work
with haproxy up to now has been with connections that don't need
persistence - everything releva
I'm trying to ensure that multiple connections from the same browser end
up on the same back end server, and having lots of trouble. All my work
with haproxy up to now has been with connections that don't need
persistence - everything relevant happens in one http request.
This is probably PEBCAK
Hello,
I'm testing HAProxy's cookie based persistence feature(s) and I have a
question. Currently I have 2 test servers set up behind HAProxy. They
use a JSESSIONID cookie like many java application servers.
In haproxy.cfg I have these persistence settings:
server server1 127.0.0.1:9443
slave sessionDB to the localhost
sessionDB (updating the SESSION_ID cookie) before proceeding to handle the
request.
On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Kevin Heatwole wrote:
> I'm thinking of using cookie persistence to stick a user to the same backend
> (if available) for all requests comi
I'm thinking of using cookie persistence to stick a user to the same backend
(if available) for all requests coming from the user.
But, I need to handle the case where HAProxy switches the user to a different
backend (because the original backend has gone offline or MAXCONN reached) than
Brilliant!
Thanks for keeping us up to date.
Cheers
Hello
I manage to configure this setup.
Thanks to baptiste and willy for their patience.
And thanks to the dev team for this fabulous product
Le 27/01/2012 08:11, Baptiste a écrit :
Ok, I understand now why you're doing like that :)
Let me update Willy's example:
frontend site1
bi
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:34:04AM +0100, eni-urge...@scan-eco.com wrote:
> Hello and thank you for your answer.
>
> I thought it was something to do with monitor fail if but i didn't
> understand that it's possible to count the number of server on a backend.
In fact, the nbsrv ACL was made *exa
Hello and thank you for your answer.
I thought it was something to do with monitor fail if but i didn't
understand that it's possible to count the number of server on a backend.
I will test this asap. and write back to the mailing list
Thanks to you for your help and thanks to the dev team of
Ok, I understand now why you're doing like that :)
Let me update Willy's example:
frontend site1
bind :80
monitor-uri /check
monitor fail if { nbsrv(local) le 0 }
acl local_ok nbsrv(local) gt 0
acl site2_ok nbsrv(site2) gt 0
acl site3_ok nbsrv(si
I followed some willy's advise in a old mail
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.haproxy/3238
Le 26/01/2012 17:08, eni-urge...@scan-eco.com a écrit :
hello thank you for your advise.
I dont know why i configure 2 different backend. I think i saw this
config on a website and thinking tha
hello thank you for your advise.
I dont know why i configure 2 different backend. I think i saw this
config on a website and thinking that was the best for me.
Le 26/01/2012 07:33, Baptiste a écrit :
Bonjour,
Well, as far as I can see, this is due to your configuration!
Why routing user
Bonjour,
Well, as far as I can see, this is due to your configuration!
Why routing user in the frontend using the persistance cookie?
You should take routing decision based on the number of servers
remaining in a backend or using some options like "allbackups" and
puting all your server in a singl
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:55:25PM +0900, Ist Conne wrote:
> So, It is difficult problem.
> Do we have not Workaround?
I am not a lawyer either but I would recommend at some point that you
leave patent issues aside. If you really care about them, then you'll
quickly need to find another job : *eve
Thanks for reply
So, It is difficult problem.
Do we have not Workaround?
2011/10/17 Holger Just :
> On 2011-10-17 14:48, Ist Conne wrote:
>> HAProxy is supported cookie-based persistence.
>> But, cookie-based Load balancing has a patented F5 Networks.
>> http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3MY
On 2011-10-17 14:48, Ist Conne wrote:
> HAProxy is supported cookie-based persistence.
> But, cookie-based Load balancing has a patented F5 Networks.
> http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3MYLEBAJ
Without being a lawyer, I'd play the prior art card as HAProxy supported
cookie based persiste
Hello,
HAProxy is supported cookie-based persistence.
But, cookie-based Load balancing has a patented F5 Networks.
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3MYLEBAJ
UltraMonkey-L7 was once implemented, but has now stopped working.
HAProxy do not have this patent-problem?
That the no problem if
We have been using RDP cookie persistence and noticed that sometimes the
distribution of the connections is not exactly even. The problem we suspect
is using round robin do distribute the load you can end up with strange
loadings where people have disconnected in groups, is it possible to use
32 matches
Mail list logo
