Re: bug report for haproxy 1.3.15

From: Willy Tarreau <>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 08:26:06 +0200


On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:20:42PM -0700, wrote:
> Hello,
> I don't know is this is true to haproxy but, in my recent research, keep alive is a bad option, at least between the client and the proxy, between the proxy and backends may help. Closing and discarding/sharing resources is better.

I agree, I've been advocating the same for a long time, because it's not often possible to maintain tens of hundreds of idle connections to clients.

However, it depends on the type of proxy. An apache-like proxy using processes or threads will be affected. An event-based proxy such as haproxy, squid, nginx, etc... will be able to sustain tens of thousands of idle connections, provided there is enough RAM in the server, and system limits are tuned appropriately.

> Later,
> Manuel Soto

Willy Received on 2008/05/07 08:26

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 2008/05/07 08:30 CEST