2011/6/11 Matt Christiansen :
> Thats good to know, while 2000 concurrent connections what we do right
> now, it will be closer to 10,000 concurrent connections come the
> holiday season which is closer to 2.5 GB of ram (still less then whats
> on the server).
>
> One though I have is our requests
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 07:00:40PM -0700, Matt Christiansen wrote:
> Thats good to know, while 2000 concurrent connections what we do right
> now, it will be closer to 10,000 concurrent connections come the
> holiday season which is closer to 2.5 GB of ram (still less then whats
> on the server).
>
Thats good to know, while 2000 concurrent connections what we do right
now, it will be closer to 10,000 concurrent connections come the
holiday season which is closer to 2.5 GB of ram (still less then whats
on the server).
One though I have is our requests can be very large at times (big
headers,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 04:04:26PM -0700, Matt Christiansen wrote:
> I added in the tun.bufsize 65536 and right away things got better, I
> doubled that to 131072 and all of the outliers went way. Set at that
> with my tests it looks like haproxy is faster then nginx on 95% of
> responses and on pa
I added in the tun.bufsize 65536 and right away things got better, I
doubled that to 131072 and all of the outliers went way. Set at that
with my tests it looks like haproxy is faster then nginx on 95% of
responses and on par with nginx for the last 5% which is fine with me
=).
What is the negativ
Hi Matt,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:50:11PM -0700, Matt Christiansen wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> I agree the haproxy logs show that, but we also monitor the time spent
> processing the request which takes in to account, GC, reading data off
> the FS and a number of things inside the app and I see no 3
Hi Willy,
I agree the haproxy logs show that, but we also monitor the time spent
processing the request which takes in to account, GC, reading data off
the FS and a number of things inside the app and I see no 3sec times
in there or anything near it. Also I have no 3 sec outliers in output
from my
Hi Matt,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:37:00AM -0700, Matt Christiansen wrote:
> I turned on those two options and seemed to help a little.
>
> We don't have a 2.6.30+ kernel so I don't believe option
> splice-response will work(?). Thats one of the things I'm going to try
> next.
Splicing is OK si
I turned on those two options and seemed to help a little.
We don't have a 2.6.30+ kernel so I don't believe option
splice-response will work(?). Thats one of the things I'm going to try
next.
I used halog to narrow down the sample, it was still a few 100 lines
so I picked three at random.
Jun
As i say, it is not yet released, get the snapshot or wait a week.
Hervé.
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:43:51 +0800
Igor wrote:
> Can't find 1.4.16 at http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.4/src/ ?
>
> Bests,
> -Igor
>
>
>
> 2011/6/9 Hervé COMMOWICK :
> > Hello Matt,
> >
> > You need to activate logging
Can't find 1.4.16 at http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.4/src/ ?
Bests,
-Igor
2011/6/9 Hervé COMMOWICK :
> Hello Matt,
>
> You need to activate logging to see what occurs to your requests, you
> can use "halog" tool (in the contrib folder) to filter out fast
> requests.
>
> Other things you can e
Hello Matt,
You need to activate logging to see what occurs to your requests, you
can use "halog" tool (in the contrib folder) to filter out fast
requests.
Other things you can enable to reduce latency is :
option tcp-smart-accept
option tcp-smart-connect
and finally you can test :
option splice
Hello,
I am wanting to move to HAProxy for my load balancing solution. Over
all I have been greatly impressed with it. It has way more throughput
and can handle way more connections then our current LB Solution
(nginx). I have been noticing one issue in all of our tests though, it
seems like in th
13 matches
Mail list logo
