bunch
of times with `HAPROXY_TEST_TIMEOUT=400` instead of the 5s default.
>From 812d4ca09ab52f3c1018345a9e8df5137941bba1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pierre-Andre Savalle
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:27:21 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MEDIUM: lb-chash: add directive hash-preserve-affinity
When using ha
9b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: psavalle
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:27:21 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MEDIUM: lb-chash: add directive hash-preserve-affinity
When using hash-based load balancing, requests are always assigned to the
server corresponding
to the hash bucket for the balancing key, w
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:26:29AM +, psavalle wrote:
> > Finally it failed on the CI on all but one instance :-)
> >
> > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/actions/runs/14065686272/job/39387465537
> >
> > It's only balance-hash-maxqueue that fails, not the other one. So I'll
> > mark it as "
> Finally it failed on the CI on all but one instance :-)
>
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/actions/runs/14065686272/job/39387465537
>
> It's only balance-hash-maxqueue that fails, not the other one. So I'll
> mark it as "broken" with a comment saying that it tends to work locally
> but not
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 06:03:55PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 05:53:47PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> (...)
> > > > If I don't manage to get them to work, I propose you to merge everything
> > > > but tag the VTC as "broken" (we already have a few such) so that they
> >
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 05:53:47PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
(...)
> > > If I don't manage to get them to work, I propose you to merge everything
> > > but tag the VTC as "broken" (we already have a few such) so that they
> > > don't run by default. It's too bad to delay the inclusion of a featur
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 04:41:39PM +, psavalle wrote:
> I gave it another try along these lines, with a few simplifications. I think
> it is still a good test for the feature, and at least it appears to work 100%
> of the time 'on my machine' -- so I am hopeful in might on yours/CI as well.
>
fine by me as well. Thank you for taking a detailed look at these tests!
>From e359317ebe3184e904432fdbdb93487a9ec6a271 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pierre-Andre Savalle
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:27:21 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MEDIUM: lb-chash: add directive hash-preserve-affinity
When using hash-based load balancing, r
Hi Pierre-André,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 08:51:51AM +, psavalle wrote:
> > I'll have a look but need to be away from keyboard for an hour now,
> > I'm sharing this just in case you have an idea. I'm running with
> > HAPROXY_TEST_TIMEOUT=400 if that can help (the 504 above makes me
> > think it
33673b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pierre-Andre Savalle
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:27:21 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] MEDIUM: lb-chash: add directive hash-preserve-affinity
When using hash-based load balancing, requests are always assigned to the
server corresponding
to the hash bucket for the bala
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 05:08:17PM +, psavalle wrote:
> > Thank you, pretty good work here! I have two requests below:
>
> These all sound good, here's an updated patch. I have also added the
> directive to the 'index' in 'configuration.txt', which I had missed earlier.
Ah, I often miss it as
Hello!
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:05:13AM +, psavalle wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This patch implements a new backend directive to control hash-based load
> balancing when servers are at the 'maxconn' limit or have a full queue. See
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/2893 for contex
Hi.
On 2025-03-21 (Fr.) 12:05, psavalle wrote:
Hello everyone,
This patch implements a new backend directive to control hash-based load
balancing when servers are at the 'maxconn' limit or have a full queue. See
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/2893 for context.
Isn't that the idea
13 matches
Mail list logo
