Search Results

Search found 181 results on 8 pages for 'haproxy 1 3'.

Page 4/8 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

  • HAProxy -- pause/queue all traffic without losing requests

    - by Marc
    I basically have the same problem as mentioned in this thread -- I would like to temporarily suspend all requests to all servers of a certain backend, so that I can upgrade the backend and the database it uses. Since this is a live system, I would like to queue up requests, and send them to the backend servers once they've been upgraded. Since I'm doing a database upgrade with the code change, I have to upgrade all backend servers simultaneously, so I can't just bring one down at a time. I tried using the tcp-request options combined with removing the static healthcheck file as mentioned in that thread, but had no luck. Setting the default "maxconn" value to 0 seems to pause and queue connections as desired, but then there seems to be no way to increase the value back to a positive number without restarting HAProxy, which kills all requests that had been queued up until that point. (The "hot-reconfiguration" options using -sf and -st start a new process, which doesn't seem to do what I want). Is what I'm trying to do possible?

    Read the article

  • HAproxy - Redirect issue - Uri Variables ?

    - by Justin
    I'm using haproxy 1.5dev3 and I was wondering if there is any possible way to grab uri variables from a request to reappend the query on the end of a redirect url? What I'm trying to do is redirect from: http://www.domain.com/page/example.htm?id=1234567 to: http://www.domain.com/frame/newpage.cfm?id=1234567 redirect prefix doesn't work properly as it tries to append /page/example.htm to the end of the redirect url. Can I do some sort of rewrite to accomplish this? It would be awesome if you could use uri and queries as variables for redirection/pool selection like on F5. Please help...Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Configuring HAProxy with memcache with failover

    - by Lawrie Matthews
    I'm configuring a new set of servers for an existing Wordpress site, and it's been requested that memcache be available and made more resilient. The idea proposed is to have HAProxy send requests to one of the two servers; if that memcache instance is inaccessible, then it should switch to the second, but should not switch back to the first if it comes back up unless the second is then unavailable. This doesn't appear to be a particularly common use case and I've not found much along these lines except to possibly set up the first node with an enormous rise value, such as: server server1 10.112.58.16:11211 check inter 5s fall 3 rise 99999999 server server2 10.112.58.19:11211 check backup which falls over as expected when server1 is unavailable. It won't ever fall back to server1, though, even if server2 goes offline. Can this be made to work?

    Read the article

  • Windows replacement for HAProxy

    - by GrayWizardx
    It does not appear that there is a similar question to this already posted, so I will go ahead and ask. I am working on a project that could benefit from having two - four servers handling incoming requests to a backend webservice. The service does not require SSL but does need to support occassional long running processes (upto 120 secs). This project does not at present have the funding to purchase a hardware load balancing solution. I have previously used HAProxy as a solution for this, and found it very simple and straightforward. Is there a similar product for windows (server 2003 or 2008) which provides similar configuration options and runs as a lightweight service? For reasons outside my control I cannot setup a Linux machine (physical or virtual) and so I am looking for behaviour that can be deployed on a windows machine. I can only find Perlbal which appears to fall into this category. So as not to keep this open indifenitely I will give credit to the only answer.

    Read the article

  • HAProxy overload protection

    - by user2050516
    using the HAProxy, would it be possible to configure an overload protection, to limit the amount of requests sent to the backing http server(s) to a given rate (z.B 100 Request per second ). If the threshold is exceeded requests should be answered with a default response. I am interested in requests per second not connections per second as a connection can have many requests. And yes to improve the servers is not an option here. If yes a configuration example to achieve that would be excellent. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • HAproxy to web host sub directory?

    - by daemonza
    Hi for reasons outside my control, I need to load balance two servers, that run a non-virtual host enabled app on IIS. Normally in HAProxy I would load balance servers(apache, tomcat, etc) like this : acl is_www_example_com hdr_end(host) -i www.example.com use_backend www_example_com if is_www_example_com backend www_example_com balance roundrobin cookie SERVERID insert nocache indirect option httpchk HEAD / HTTP/1.0 option httpclose option forwardfor server node1 192.168.1.1:80 cookie node1 server node1 192.168.1.2:80 cookie node1 Which will route to the node 1 and node 2 server and serve up the virtual host site. if I need to route to www.example.com/application/data How would I be able to do it, with the above example, if at all even possible?

    Read the article

  • Haproxy, configure for one host

    - by Michal K.
    I have to use haproxy on one machine. I want to do redirect requests from Ip to the same ip (with another port). My configuration (doesn't work): lobal maxconn 4096 # Total Max Connections. This is dependent on ulimit daemon nbproc 1 # Number of processing cores. Dual Dual-core Opteron is 4 cores for example. defaults mode http clitimeout 600000000 srvtimeout 600000000 contimeout 400000000 log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 notice option httpclose # Disable Keepalive listen http_proxy 127.0.0.1:8080 balance leastconn # Load Balancing algorithm acl acl_apache path_end .avi .jpeg #option httpchk option forwardfor # This sets X-Forwarded-For ## Define your servers to balance server DE2 127.0.0.1:8080 weight 1 maxconn 15 check

    Read the article

  • Haproxy ACL for balance on URL request

    - by Elgreco08
    I'm usung Ubuntu with haproxy 1.4.13 version. Its load balancing two subdomains: app1.domain.com app2.domain.com now i want to be able to use ACL to send based on url request to the right backends For example: http://app1.domain.com/path/games/index.php sould be send to backend1 http://app1.domain.com/path/photos/index.php should be send to backend2 http://app2.domain.com/path/mail/index.php sould be send to backend3 http://app2.domain.com/path/wazap/index.php should be send to backend4 i did used the code the the following acl frontend http-farm bind 0.0.0.0:80 acl app1web hdr_beg(host) -i app1 # for http://app1.domain.com acl app2web hdr_beg(host) -i app2 # for http://app2.domain.com acl msg-url-1 url_reg ^\/path/games/.* acl msg-url-2 url_reg ^\/path/photos/.* acl msg-url-3 url_reg ^\/path/mail/.* acl msg-url-4 url_reg ^\/path/wazap/.* use_backend games if msg-url-1 app1web use_backend photos if msg-url-2 app2web use_backend mail if ..... backend games option httpchk GET /alive.php HTTP/1.1\r\nHost:\ app1.domain.com option forwardfor balance roundrobin server appsrv-1 192.168.1.10:80 check inter 2000 fall 3 server appsrv-2 192.168.1.11:80 check inter 2000 fall 3 backend photos option httpchk GET /alive.php HTTP/1.1\r\nHost:\ app2.domain.com option forwardfor balance roundrobin server appsrv-1 192.168.1.13:80 check inter 2000 fall 3 server appsrv-2 192.168.1.14:80 check inter 2000 fall 3 .... Since the path mail, photos...etc will be application pools on iis, i want to monitor them if they are alive, if the pool does not respond it should stop serving it. my problem is for sure in the regular expression in the ACL acl msg-url-4 url_reg ^\/path/wazap/.* What should i change in the ACL to make it work ? thanks for any hints

    Read the article

  • Nginx, HAproxy, Unicorn, Rails and Node settings

    - by Julien Genestoux
    Our application is currently only a "regular" web app, with no fancy things like streaming HTTP or websockets. It's mostly a Rails app, served by a few (20 on 2 machines) Unicorn workers, proxied by a venerable nginx server which deals with load balancing. This has been working quite well for the past year and the app now serves between 400 and 800 requests per second at any point during the day. We're soon releasing 2 new APIs, which are both served by a Node application : a websocket one, as well as a long polling HTTP one. (the fancy thing like the Twitter streaming API where HTTP connections never end). They both use the same port on node and since the node app is stateless, we can certainly deploy a few of them to handle the traffic. The app (node) is now deployed in 5 instances and are now listening on 5 different 'private' ports on the same host. We need to put something in front of them to load balance, but also something that is able to deal with sockets (either websocket or HTTP streaming) which are intended to stay 'up' for days. The question is then : what? I read somewhere that HAProxy does a better job than Nginx at this. What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • How many reverse proxies (nginx, haproxy) is too many?

    - by Alysum
    I'm setting up a HA (high availability) cluster using nginx, haproxy & apache. I've been reading great things about nginx and haproxy. People tend to choose one or the other but I like both. Haproxy is more flexible for load balancing than nginx's simple round robin (even with the upstream-fair patch). But I'd like to keep nginx for redirecting non-https to https among other things right at the point of entry to the cluster. On the other hand, nginx is a lot faster for serving static contents and would reduce the load on the powerful apache which loves to eat a lot of RAM! Here is my planned setup: Load balancer: nginx listens on port 80/443 and proxy_forwards to haproxy on 8080 on the same server to load balance between the multiple nodes. Nodes: nginx on the node listens to requests coming from haproxy on 8080, if the content is static, serve it. But if it's a backend script (in my case PHP), proxy forward to apache2 on the same node server listenning on a different port number. Technically this setup works but my concerns are whether having the requests going through several proxies is going to slow down requests? Most of the requests will be PHP requests as the backends are services (which means groing from nginx - haproxy - nginx - apache). Thoughts? Cheers

    Read the article

  • HAProxy - forward to a different web server based on URI

    - by Saggi Malachi
    I have an HTTP farm with the following configuration: listen webfarm 10.254.23.225:80 mode http balance roundrobin cookie SERVERID insert option httpclose option forwardfor option httpchk HEAD /check.txt HTTP/1.0 server webA 10.254.23.4:80 cookie A check server webB 10.248.23.128:80 cookie B check I would like to add some option which would forward all requests for a specific URI (i.e /special) to a 3rd web server. How should I do it?

    Read the article

  • HAProxy NGInx SSL setup

    - by Niclas
    I've been looking around different setups for a server cluster supporting SSL and I would like to benchmark my idea with you. Requirements: All servers in the cluster should be under the same full domain name. (http and https) Routing to subsystems is done on URI matching in HA proxy. All URIs have support for SSL support. Wish: Centralizing routing rules ---<----http-----<-- | | Inet -->HA--+---https--->NGInx_SSL_1..N | | +---http---> Apache_1..M | +---http---> NodeJS Idea: Configure HA to route all SSL traffic (mode=tcp,algorithm=Source) to an NGInx cluster turning https traffic into http. Re-pass the http traffic from NGInx to the HA for normal load-balancing which performs load balancing based on HA config. My question is simply: Is this the best way to to configure based on requirements above?

    Read the article

  • Basic Weight Questions with HAProxy

    - by Kyle Brandt
    Do weights assigned to servers only effect the balance within that particular backend? When implementing weights for the first time, if I give all the servers in a backend the same number, would that be the same as before when there we no weights? How do I calculate just how much traffic I am shiffting by adjust weights by certain amounts. For example: server web1 10.10.10.10 weight 100 server web2 10.10.10.11 weight 100 server web3 10.10.10.12 weight 90 server web4 10.10.10.13 weight 90

    Read the article

  • How can I use HAproxy with SSL and get X-Forwarded-For headers AND tell PHP that SSL is in use?

    - by Josh
    I have the following setup: (internet) ---> [ pfSense Box ] /-> [ Apache / PHP server ] [running HAproxy] --+--> [ Apache / PHP server ] +--> [ Apache / PHP server ] \-> [ Apache / PHP server ] For HTTP requests this works great, requests are distributed to my Apache servers just fine. For SSL requests, I had HAproxy distributing the requests using TCP load balancing, and it worked however since HAproxy didn't act as a proxy, it didn't add the X-Forwarded-For HTTP header, and the Apache / PHP servers didn't know the client's real IP address. So, I added stunnel in front of HAproxy, reading that stunnel could add the X-Forwarded-For HTTP header. However, the package which I could install into pfSense does not add this header... also, this apparently kills my ability to use KeepAlive requests, which I would really like to keep. But the biggest issue which killed that idea was that stunnel converted the HTTPS requests into plain HTTP requests, so PHP didn't know that SSL was enabled and tried to redirect to the SSL site. How can I use HAproxy to load balance across a number of SSL servers, allowing those servers to both know the client's IP address and know that SSL is in use? And if possible, how can I do it on my pfSense server? Or should I drop all this and just use nginx?

    Read the article

  • Can Haproxy deny a request by IP if its stick-table is full?

    - by bantic
    In my haproxy configs I'm setting a stick-table of size 5 that stores every incoming IP address (for 1 minute), and it is set as nopurge so new entries won't get stored in the table. What I'd like to have happen is that they would get denied, but that isn't happening. The stick-table line is: stick-table type ip size 5 expire 1m nopurge store gpc0 And the whole configs are: global maxconn 30000 ulimit-n 65536 log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 debug stats socket /var/run/haproxy.stat mode 600 level operator defaults mode http timeout connect 5000ms timeout client 50000ms timeout server 50000ms backend fragile_backend tcp-request content track-sc2 src stick-table type ip size 5 expire 1m nopurge store gpc0 server fragile_backend1 A.B.C.D:80 frontend http_proxy bind *:80 mode http option forwardfor default_backend fragile_backend I have confirmed (connecting to haproxy's stats using socat readline /var/run/haproxy.stat) that the stick-table fills up with 5 IP addresses, but then every request after that from a new IP just goes straight through -- it isn't added to the stick-table, nothing is removed from the stick-table, and the request is not denied. What I'd like to do is deny the request if the stick-table is full. Is this possible? I'm using haproxy 1.5.

    Read the article

  • Why won't haproxy capture my cookie?

    - by mike
    I'm having trouble getting frontend cookie capture to work in haproxy. I have this in my config: frontend frontend 0.0.0.0:9999 [snip] capture cookie foo len 10 Then I use nc to talk directly to the server and send it: GET / HTTP/1.1 Cookie: foo=bar I get a log line, but there's a "-" where the captured cookie should be.

    Read the article

  • How can I get Haproxy to not log local requests?

    - by coneybeare
    I am trying to clean out some of the log clutter from my machines and am starting by removing requests that are generated from the server themselves. I have cache warmers running around the clock and I don't want these polluting the logs. I was able to get apache to stop logging local requests by adding a dontlog for the local IP: SetEnvIf Remote_Addr "RE\.DA\.CT\.ED" dontlog CustomLog "|logger -p local3.info -t http" combined env=!dontlog and now I am looking for something similar to put in a configuration for the Haproxy log. How can I prevent 127.0.0.1 requests from writing to the Haproxy log? UPDATE: 2/15/11 I use the excellent loggly service to pull out logs in the cloud, but I am seeing tons of logs like this: 2011 Feb 15 06:09:42.000 ip-10-251-194-96 http: RE.DA.CT.ED - - [15/Feb/2011:06:09:42 -0500] "HEAD /search/Nevad/predictive/txt HTTP/1.0" 200 - "-" "Wget/1.10.2 (Red Hat modified)" 2011 Feb 15 06:09:42.000 127.0.0.1 haproxy[10390]: 127.0.0.1:58408 [15/Feb/2011:06:09:42] www i-5dd7a331.0 0/0/0/8/8 200 210 - - --NI 0/0/0 0/0 "HEAD /search/Nevad/predictive/txt HTTP/1.1" and I want them gone. This question focuses on how to remove that haproxy log line from writing to the server side log in the first place.

    Read the article

  • Should I use an ssl terminator or just haproxy?

    - by Justin Meltzer
    I'm trying to figure out how to set up my architecture for a socket.io app that will require both https and wss connections. I've found many tutorials on the web suggesting that you use something like stud or stunnel in front of haproxy, which then routes your unencrypted traffic to your app. If I were to go this route, is it suggested that haproxy and the ssl terminator be on separate instances, or is it fine if they are on the same EC2 server instance? If I do not want to use a separate ssl terminator, could I use haproxy to terminate the ssl? Or instead would it be possible to proxy these https and wss connections to my application and have the node app terminate the ssl itself?

    Read the article

  • How to set the request start time with HAProxy?

    - by Tupy
    I would like to measure the time of full request stack. The New Relic capture time of the middleware (e.g. java, python, ruby) and request time (See https://newrelic.com/docs/features/tracking-front-end-time). For this, I need to configure the X-Request-Start header as the request pass through the HAProxy load balance. The haproxy.cfg should look like: backend www balance roundrobin mode http reqadd "X-Request-Start" UNKNOWN_TIME_FUNCTION() server servername 192.168.0.1:80 weight 1 check There is a haproxy native function to replace the UNKNOWN_TIME_FUNCTION()?

    Read the article

  • How can HAProxy improve availibility, or "how can I prevent my site from going down"? [closed]

    - by Joe Hopfgartner
    I am aware of what HAProxy does, but what if my HAproxy goes down? Or what if my DNS servers go down? Yes, dns is less the problem. However dns only solves to an IP and an IP is announced via BGP to be routed over some router. What if that router goes down? Of course if I have complicated application servers that are likely to fail HAProxy can significantly improve uptime. But my application isnt. In fact my application may very well just be delivering a small static html file via HTTP. Basically if any user anywhere types in MYDOMAIN.COM, I want the user to get SOMETHING on the screen other than a timeout or DNS resolution error. How can I do that? The point of entry is difficult. The so called "initial closure mechanism".

    Read the article

  • How to divert traffic based on hostname using HAProxy?

    - by Bosky
    I've had some initial success with HAProxy setting up a bunch of app servers listening on various other ports. I now have another webserver listening on one port, and i'd like to what changes to make to my config to flow traffic by hostname as well. The following is the current setup, assuming: my apache webserver is running at examplecom:8001 my bunch of app servers 0.0.0.0:8081, 0.0.0.0:8082 , 0.0.0.0:8083 global log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 notice maxconn 4096 debug #quiet #user haproxy #group haproxy defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull retries 3 redispatch maxconn 2000 contimeout 5000 clitimeout 50000 srvtimeout 50000 listen appservers 0.0.0.0:80 mode http balance roundrobin option httpclose option forwardfor #option httpchk HEAD /check.txt HTTP/1.0 server inst1 0.0.0.0:8081 cookie server01 check inter 2000 fall 3 server inst2 0.0.0.0:8082 cookie server02 check inter 2000 fall 3 server inst3 0.0.0.0:8083 cookie server01 check inter 2000 fall 3 server inst4 0.0.0.0:8084 cookie server02 check inter 2000 fall 3 capture cookie vgnvisitor= len 32 (any other comments on the ^ setup are welcome.) Now I'd like to continue the same above, but in addition in case - if the hostname is myspecialtopleveldomain<dot>com, then would like to flow traffic to example<dot>com:8001 ~B

    Read the article

  • When using TCP load balancing with HAProxy, does all outbound traffic flow through the LB?

    - by user122875
    I am setting up an app to be hosted using VMs(probably amazon, but that is not set in stone) which will require both HTTP load balancing and load balancing a large number(50k or so if possible) of persistant TCP connections. The amount of data is not all that high, but updates are frequent. Right now I am evaluating load balancers and am a bit confused about the architecture of HAProxy. If I use HAProxy to balance the TCP connections, will all the resulting traffic have to flow through the load balancer? If so, would another solution(such as LVS or even nginx_tcp_proxy_module) be a better fit?

    Read the article

  • How to rate-limit concurrent sessions with nginx or haproxy?

    - by bantic
    I'm currently using nginx to reverse-proxy requests from web clients that are doing long-polling to an upstream. Since we're doing long polling (as opposed to websockets), when a client connects it will make multiple http connections to the server in serial, re-establishing a connection every time the server sends it some data (or timing out and re-establishing if the server has nothing to say for 10 seconds). What I'd like to do is limit the number of concurrent web clients. Since the clients are constantly making new HTTP requests instead of keeping a single request open, it's a little tricky to count the total number of web clients (because it's not the same as total number of concurrently connected http clients). The method I've come up with is to track http requests by the originating IP address, and store the IP address somewhere with a TTL of 20 seconds. If a request comes in whose IP isn't recognized, then we check the total number of unexpired stored IP addresses; if that's less than the maximum then we allow this request through. And if a request comes in with an IP address that we can find in the look-up table that hasn't yet expired, then it is allowed through as well. All requests that are allowed through have their IPs added to the table (if not there before) and the TTL refreshed to 20 seconds again. I had actually whipped something together that worked correctly this way using nginx along with the Redis 2.0 Nginx Module (and the nginx lua module to simplify the conditional branching), using redis to store my IP addresses with a TTL (the SETEX command), and checking the table size with the DBSIZE command. This worked but the performance was horrible. nginx and redis ended up using lots of cpu and the machine could only handle a very small number of concurrent requests. The new stick-table and tracking counters that were added to Haproxy in version 1.5 (via a commission from serverfault) seem like they might be ideal to implement exactly this sort of rate limiting, because the stick-table can track IP addresses and automatically expire entries. However, I don't see an easy way to get a total count of the unexpired entries in the stick table, which would be necessary to know the number of connected web clients. I'm curious if anyone has any suggestions, for nginx or haproxy or even for something else not mentioned here that I haven't thought of yet.

    Read the article

  • When a server IP changes, do exising TCP (e.g. http/mysql) connections remain running

    - by Luke Cousins
    We have some PHP-FPM servers and when they need a database connection, they connect to an HAProxy server which selects them a database server to use and the connection opens. When we then want to perform some maintenance on the HAProxy servers (such as config changes requiring an HAProxy restart), the process is as follows: Shutdown Keepalived on the HAProxy server Wait for the floating IP to transfer to the backup HAProxy server (also running Keepalived) Wait until HAProxy stats is reporting just one connection (us checking how many connections there are) Restart HAProxy Restart Keepalived As step 2 occurs, what will happen to the open mysql connections at that point? According to this TCP Sessions and IP Changes question the connections will be dropped. Is this really the case? If so, what, if anything, can be done to prevent this happening? Can the connection be in some way forced to use the main (non-floating) IP of the server? We also have a similar setup with two Nginx servers with Keepalived running on them and we were planning on doing the equivalent process. If we do, the same question applies - what happens to the existing http connections when the IP moves to the other server? I appreciate your help.

    Read the article

  • Properly escaping check_command in nagios

    - by shadyabhi
    When I execute sudo -u nagios /usr/lib64/nagios/plugins/check_by_ssh.sh hostname "check_haproxy -u \"http://localhost:10000/haproxy?stats\;csv\"" it runs perfectly on the server. For this, I have this in my HAProxy.cfg define service { use generic-service hostgroup_name pwmail-ee-oxweb service_description HAProxy-ee servicegroups ssh-dep check_command check_by_ssh!check_haproxy -u \"http://localhost:10000/haproxy?stats\;csv\" contacts sysad,mail-hosting-rt } It doesn't work. Says that Return code of 127 is out of bounds - plugin may be missing. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >