> 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 could be related but don't have the time to test otherwise
> now).
Ah, yes, to mak
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.
>
Hello Willy,
> Unfortunately I couldn't get it to work even a single time :-( I tried
> hard to fiddle with barriers as well to try to improve the serialization
> but didn't manage to force it to proceed like we want. Pretty frustrating.
> What I tried was to make sure that c2 starts only once the
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
> Isn't that the idea behind `option redispatch`
> https://docs.haproxy.org/3.1/configuration.html#4.2-option%20redispatch
>
> How about to add there the option `maxconn` and/or `maxqueue` instead of
> adding a new keyword?
There was an older discussion about this at
https://haproxy.formilux.na
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
