On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 09:47:12AM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > > As for my multi proc ssl setup in case anyone was wondering:
> > > I did a ssl-offload listener that runs on all cores except core0 on each
> > > cpu + it's HT sibling.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > As for my multi proc ssl setup in case anyone was wondering:
> > I did a ssl-offload listener that runs on all cores except core0 on each
> > cpu + it's HT sibling.
> > relaying via unix sockets to a frontend that runs on core0 on each cpu
Hi Elias,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:06:13PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote:
> How about nginx style? nbproc auto + cpu-map auto?
Well, based on my experience on many different setups, I can tell
you that there isn't any single default setting which will be at
least basically right for a single use
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:18:45PM +0100, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> > On 9 December 2016 at 20:07, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> (...)
> > >> > I wonder if a `per-process' keyword would make sense here. I find
> > >> >
> > >> > bind :443 s
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 08:18:45PM +0100, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> On 9 December 2016 at 20:07, Apollon Oikonomopoulos
> wrote:
(...)
> >> > I wonder if a `per-process' keyword would make sense here. I find
> >> >
> >> > bind :443 ssl per-process
> >> >
> >> > more concise than 15 or 20 in
On 9 December 2016 at 20:07, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> Hi Pavlos,
>
> On 17:31 Fri 09 Dec , Pavlos Parissis wrote:
>> On 09/12/2016 08:54 πμ, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
>> > Hi Willy, Elias,
>> >
>> > On 08:33 Fri 09 Dec , Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:2
Hi Pavlos,
On 17:31 Fri 09 Dec , Pavlos Parissis wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 08:54 πμ, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> > Hi Willy, Elias,
> >
> > On 08:33 Fri 09 Dec , Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote:
> >>> # Should I use core 0 on each
On 09/12/2016 08:54 πμ, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> Hi Willy, Elias,
>
> On 08:33 Fri 09 Dec , Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote:
>>> # Should I use core 0 on each CPU for backends (proc 1+15) or should
>>> I
>>> use core 1(proc 2+16)?
Hi Willy, Elias,
On 08:33 Fri 09 Dec , Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote:
> > # Should I use core 0 on each CPU for backends (proc 1+15) or should
> > I
> > use core 1(proc 2+16)?
>
> Backends are processed on the same CPU as the frontend
Hi Elias,
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Elias Abacioglu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Similar to what Christian asked about a few days ago I would like help
> to summarize the recommendations for running a haproxy as a SSL LB on
> a multi cpu, multi core machine.
>
> I have a machine with two soc
Hi,
Similar to what Christian asked about a few days ago I would like help
to summarize the recommendations for running a haproxy as a SSL LB on
a multi cpu, multi core machine.
I have a machine with two sockets equipped with Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4.
56 cores in total with HT enabled, 28 with HT di
11 matches
Mail list logo
