Initial testing with 1.2.0 and 1.1 keepalive to upstreams has our ephemeral port usage down from 38,000 to 220 on a canned test run. This is a big deal, we can use nginx for reverse proxy on far busier sites now. Anyone put this under heavy usage in production yet? New release seems to be working brilliantly, good work to all involved.by gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
Looks like that was for the 1.1.18 development release. Is this what will become the 1.2.0 stable in a couple weeks? Seems I'll need to wait for that one to get http 1.1 keepalive upstreams in stable. gtuhl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alexandr Gomoliako Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > On Tue, Marby gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
Alexandr Gomoliako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:33 PM, gtuhl > <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > > I'm thinking about giving the development > version with the upstream > > keepalive over http 1.1 a try. > > > > Are people using that version in production? > Is there a release > &gby gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
I'm thinking about giving the development version with the upstream keepalive over http 1.1 a try. Are people using that version in production? Is there a release schedule/estimate anywhere that indicates when that feature might trickle over to stable? We're using nginx heavily in a pretty vanilla load balancer role - upstream of apache servers, ssl termination in nginx, that's it in termsby gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
Andrey Korolyov Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:59 PM, ggrensteiner > <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > > net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle = 1 > > > > is what your looking for > > > > Posted at Nginx Forum: > http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,220894,221583#ms > g-221583 > > > > _by gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
gtuhl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Initially we were seeing a ton of "connect() > failed (110: Connection timed out)", 1 every > couple seconds. I added these to sysctl.conf and > that seemed to solve the problem: > > net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 1 > net.ipv4.tcp_fin_timeout = 20 > net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 2048by gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
We have a box running nginx and two boxes running apache. The apache boxes are configured as an upstream for nginx. The nginx box has a public IP, and then it talks to the upstream apaches using the private network (same switch). We are sustaining a couple hundred requests/sec. We've had several issues with the upstreams being counted out by nginx, causing the "no live upstreams&quoby gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
I am not sure about that but am digging in more now to try and get more information. We do have a lot of infrastructure in this datacenter though and I haven't previously run into issues along these lines. I am running nginx 0.7.65 on Ubuntu 10.04.3 LTS. Seems using the current version might be worth a shot as well, didn't realize I was that far behind.by gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
I've been troubleshooting this issue on and off the last couple days and have not been able to eliminate this error from nginx: 2011/12/12 13:12:32 27810#0: *36209658 connect() failed (110: Connection timed out) while connecting to upstream Our setup is a single machine running nginx that serves as reverse proxy to two separate apache servers. The setup is handling perhaps a few dozen requby gtuhl - Nginx Mailing List - English
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |