Hello,
I've also attached an example nginx.conf and test script that simulates the
asynchronous close events.
Two different test cases can be found within that, one with path /1 for single
peer upstream and /2 for multi-peer.
You should see 2 upstream addresses repeated in a row per-upstream-s
re-sending the patch as an attachment as the formatting is still weird,
and fixed typo I spotted..
On 02/04/2023 18:57, J Carter wrote:
Hello,
I've also attached an example nginx.conf and test script that
simulates the asynchronous close events.
Two different test cases can be found within th
Hello!
On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 06:57:03PM +0100, J Carter wrote:
> I've also attached an example nginx.conf and test script that
> simulates the asynchronous close events.
> Two different test cases can be found within that, one with path
> /1 for single peer upstream and /2 for multi-peer.
>
Hello Maxim,
Thank you for the feedback.
I think the points you made are fair - a new directive is possibly
overkill for
this issue.
A single peer going through all of it's (many) cached connections
when there is is a non-asynchronous close connection error is where I've
personally seen the c
