Hypermail

From: Peter Miller <Peter.Miller#condenast.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:52:20 +0100

Well turns out it probably was an issue with not having set the timeouts. I've followed the example at http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.3/examples/antidos.cfg and implemented the following in the terms of timeouts

	timeout client 60s   # Client and server timeout must match the longest
	timeout server 60s   # time we may wait for a response from the server.
	timeout queue  60s   # Don't queue requests too long if saturated.
	timeout connect 4s   # There's no reason to change this one.
	timeout http-request 5s	# A complete request may never take that long.

And the graph is much lower :-)

The issue with the non-killed old processes seems to have resolved itself after I manually killed those that were left - it's possible that it was due to the described as we started off with the default haproxy version installed with debian's aptitude (which is an old version) and manually upgraded to 1.3.17.

By the way for those who asked I'm implementing cacti monitoring for haproxy via snmp (on a separate server) with the following (hard-to-find) technique: http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/contrib/netsnmp-perl/README

Thanks all,

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w#1wt.eu]
Sent: 02 July 2009 21:26
To: John Marrett
Cc: Joseph Hardeman; Peter Miller; haproxy#formilux.org Subject: Re: Rising number of connections

stupid question guys : are you sure you have set your timeouts ? What you describe is the behaviour of an instance without any timeout on which some clients randomly disappear from the net leaving a dead connection.

Willy

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail **

The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.

Company Registration details:
The Conde Nast Publications Ltd
Vogue House
Hanover Square
London W1S 1JU

Registered in London No. 226900 Received on 2009/07/05 18:52

RE: Rising number of connections