On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Am 09-12-2014 22:04, schrieb Pavlos Parissis:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It has been mentioned that 1.5 version doesn't support connection
>> pooling, meaning that 1 TCP session to a backend s
Hi.
Am 09-12-2014 22:04, schrieb Pavlos Parissis:
Hi,
It has been mentioned that 1.5 version doesn't support connection
pooling, meaning that 1 TCP session to a backend server can serve
multiple HTTP requests originated from than 1 client.
Do you guys have plans to introduce
On 9 December 2014 at 23:55, Baptiste wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Pavlos Parissis
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It has been mentioned that 1.5 version doesn't support connection
> > pooling, meaning that 1 TCP session to a backend server can serve
&g
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Pavlos Parissis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It has been mentioned that 1.5 version doesn't support connection
> pooling, meaning that 1 TCP session to a backend server can serve
> multiple HTTP requests originated from than 1 client.
>
> Do you gu
Hi,
It has been mentioned that 1.5 version doesn't support connection
pooling, meaning that 1 TCP session to a backend server can serve
multiple HTTP requests originated from than 1 client.
Do you guys have plans to introduce this functionality in 1.6 release?
Cheers,
Pavlos
signatur
Hi Conrad,
> Hey all,
>
> can someone give me a very brief summary of how haproxy handles its
> connection pooling when the backend server sends "Connection: close"
> and/or HTTP/1.0?
Simple: there is no connection pooling at all (yet). When a backend emits
&q
Hey all,
can someone give me a very brief summary of how haproxy handles its
connection pooling when the backend server sends "Connection: close"
and/or HTTP/1.0?
Or, to be more specific, we have (for certain traffic) an haproxy
instance as backend for another haproxy. We are s
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:23:25AM -0700, Chris Goffinet wrote:
> Not sure I understand what your asking. Why does haproxy need to
> understand the protocol besides its TCP based? You can use haproxy
> today for things like MySQL, etc. All I am saying is having the
> ability to persist those
dered or if its possible (am I
missing something?) to do connection pooling in haproxy for TCP
backends? We've been using haproxy internally at Digg and it's
working
out really well. Before joining Digg, at Yahoo we had something very
similar to haproxy, that supported connection poo
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 06:22:58AM -0700, Chris Goffinet wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has considered or if its possible (am I
> missing something?) to do connection pooling in haproxy for TCP
> backends? We've been using haproxy internally at Digg and it's working
has considered or if its possible (am I
> missing something?) to do connection pooling in haproxy for TCP
> backends? We've been using haproxy internally at Digg and it's
> working out really well. Before joining Digg, at Yahoo we had
> something very similar to haproxy,
I was wondering if anyone has considered or if its possible (am I
missing something?) to do connection pooling in haproxy for TCP
backends? We've been using haproxy internally at Digg and it's working
out really well. Before joining Digg, at Yahoo we had something very
similar
12 matches
Mail list logo