Hi Willy.
Am 27-07-2014 16:22, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Hi Aleks,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 01:44:01PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
Peers are a bit different, as they can be accessed at a very high rate.
However I'm pretty sure we'll move that to a shared memory just like
the SSL session
Hi Apollon,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:54:07PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
- multi-process : better synchronization of stats and health checks,
and find a way to support peers in this mode. I'm still thinking a
lot that due to the arrival of latency monsters that are SSL
Hi Scott,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 03:40:10PM +0100, Scott McKeown | redIT wrote:
Anyhow, as you have mentioned that its really the community that is
helping drive the developement forward, how about some form of online
vote system to help find out what the community would most like to have
Hi Willy,
Thank you for clearing this up for me.
I now understand the direction that you are wanting to take more clearly
now.
I just wish that I could help more than by just using and reporting, I'm
sure I'll get there though.
~Scott
On 29/07/2014 09:33, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi
Hi Pavlos,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:07:37AM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
On 25/07/2014 07:28 , Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi all,
[..snip..]
- hot reconfiguration : some users are abusing the reload mechanism to
extreme levels, but that does not void their requirements. And
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:44:50AM +0100, Scott McKeown | redIT wrote:
Hi Willy,
Thank you for clearing this up for me.
I now understand the direction that you are wanting to take more clearly
now.
I just wish that I could help more than by just using and reporting, I'm
sure I'll get
On 29/07/2014 10:55 πμ, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Pavlos,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:07:37AM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
On 25/07/2014 07:28 , Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi all,
[..snip..]
- hot reconfiguration : some users are abusing the reload mechanism to
extreme levels, but
On 28/07/2014 11:54 πμ, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
Hi Willy,
On 19:28 Fri 25 Jul , Willy Tarreau wrote:
Concerning the new features, no promises, but we know that we need to
progress in the following areas :
- multi-process : better synchronization of stats and health checks,
On 28 Jul 2014, at 11:54, Apollon Oikonomopoulos apoi...@debian.org wrote:
If anyone has any comment / question / suggestion, as usual feel free to
keep the discussion going on.
Could I also add shared SSL session cache over multiple boxes (like
stud), to aid SSL scalability behind LVS
Hi Willy.
Am 26-07-2014 16:50, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Hi Aleks,
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 03:46:30PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
Concerning the new features, no promises, but we know that we need to
progress in the following areas :
- multi-process : better synchronization of stats and
Hi Aleks,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 01:44:01PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
Peers are a bit different, as they can be accessed at a very high rate.
However I'm pretty sure we'll move that to a shared memory just like
the SSL session storage at some point, except that we still have to
inform
Hi Willy,
I know that you are thinking of all sorts of wonderful things for
HAProxy at the moment and reading through this email thread only
empisises the amount of work that you and other cleaver people have put
into making HAProxy in my opinion the only product that works.
OK that sounds
On 25/07/2014 07:28 μμ, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi all,
[..snip..]
- hot reconfiguration : some users are abusing the reload mechanism to
extreme levels, but that does not void their requirements. And many
other users occasionally need to reload for various reasons such as
Hi Willy.
Am 25-07-2014 19:28, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
Hi all,
Here I'm putting down my analysis of what was right and what was wrong
in the development model for 1.4 and 1.5, hoping to improve it for 1.6.
[long e-mail, even for one from me].
[long and detailed Informations snipped]
Hi Aleks,
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 03:46:30PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
Concerning the new features, no promises, but we know that we need to
progress in the following areas :
- multi-process : better synchronization of stats and health checks,
and find a way to support peers in
Hi all,
Here I'm putting down my analysis of what was right and what was wrong
in the development model for 1.4 and 1.5, hoping to improve it for 1.6.
[long e-mail, even for one from me].
What worked very well was to have a stable branch in parallel of the
development branch. The mess was that
16 matches
Mail list logo
