# Upstream keepalive - call for testing **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [August 1, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170 "2011-08-01T18:08:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![luislavena](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/0ea827/32.png) [@luislavena](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/luislavena)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/1 "2011-08-01T18:08:30Z")
Hello! JFYI: Last week I posted patch to nginx-devel@ which adds keepalive support to various backends (as with upstream keepalive module), including fastcgi and http backends (this in turn means nginx now able to talk HTTP/1.1 to backends, in particular it now understands chunked responses). Patch applies to 1.0.5 and 1.1.0. Testing is appreciated. You may find patch and description here: [http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2011-July/001057.html](http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2011-July/001057.html) Patch itself may be downloaded here: [http://nginx.org/patches/patch-nginx-keepalive-full.txt](http://nginx.org/patches/patch-nginx-keepalive-full.txt) Upstream keepalive module may be downloaded here: [http://mdounin.ru/hg/ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive/](http://mdounin.ru/hg/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive/) [http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz](http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz) Maxim D. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/2 "2011-08-02T15:38:01Z")
Hi compile error on ubuntu 11.04 gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 4.5.2 Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. configure: ./configure --with-cc-opt="-D NGX\_UPSTREAM\_KEEPALIVE\_PATCHED" –add-module=ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive-0.4 compile error: src/http/modules/ngx\_http\_memcached\_module.c:411:19: error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/3 "2011-08-02T17:27:35Z")
On 1 Ago 2011 17h07 WEST, [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Testing is appreciated. > > [ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive: log](http://mdounin.ru/hg/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive/) > [http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz](http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz) So _either_ we use the patch or use the module. Correct? Thanks, — appa ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/4 "2011-08-02T19:34:15Z")
Hello! On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 09:37:12PM +0800, liseen wrote: > configure: > ./configure --with-cc-opt=“-D NGX\_UPSTREAM\_KEEPALIVE\_PATCHED” > –add-module=ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive-0.4 > > compile error: > src/http/modules/ngx\_http\_memcached\_module.c:411:19: error: comparison > between signed and unsigned integer expressions Thank you for report. You may grab updated patch here: [http://nginx.org/patches/patch-nginx-keepalive-full-2.txt](http://nginx.org/patches/patch-nginx-keepalive-full-2.txt) Maxim D. > > able to talk HTTP/1.1 to backends, in particular it now > > [http://nginx.org/patches/patch-nginx-keepalive-full.txt](http://nginx.org/patches/patch-nginx-keepalive-full.txt) > > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > > [mailman.nginx.org archive](http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx) ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/5 "2011-08-02T19:42:54Z")
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Maxim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Last week I posted patch to nginx-devel@ which adds keepalive > > > > So _either_ we use the patch or use the module. Correct? > > No, to keep backend connections alive you need module _and_ patch. > Patch provides foundation in nginx core for module to work with > fastcgi and http. With a custom nginx upstream binary protocol, I believe multiplexing will now be possible? ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/6 "2011-08-02T19:50:18Z")
Hello! On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:42:13AM +0800, David Yu wrote: > > > > JFYI: > > > > > > So _either_ we use the patch or use the module. Correct? > > > > No, to keep backend connections alive you need module _and_ patch. > > Patch provides foundation in nginx core for module to work with > > fastcgi and http. > > With a custom nginx upstream binary protocol, I believe multiplexing will > now be possible? ENOPARSE, sorry. Maxim D. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/7 "2011-08-02T19:36:43Z")
Hello! On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 04:24:45PM +0100, António P. P. Almeida wrote: > > understands chunked responses). Patch applies to 1.0.5 and 1.1.0. > > > > Upstream keepalive module may be downloaded here: > > > > [ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive: log](http://mdounin.ru/hg/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive/) > > [http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz](http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz) > > So _either_ we use the patch or use the module. Correct? No, to keep backend connections alive you need module _and_ patch. Patch provides foundation in nginx core for module to work with fastcgi and http. Maxim D. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/8 "2011-08-02T19:54:01Z")
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Maxim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > On 1 Ago 2011 17h07 WEST, [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fastcgi and http. > > > > With a custom nginx upstream binary protocol, I believe multiplexing will > > now be possible? > > ENOPARSE, sorry. After some googling … ENOPARSE is a nerdy term. It is one of the standard C library error codes that can be set in the global variable “errno” and stands for Error No Parse. Since you didn’t get it, I can thus conclude that unlike me you are probably a normal, well adjusted human being 😉 Now I get it. Well adjusted I am. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/9 "2011-08-02T20:47:55Z")
Hello! On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:53:30AM +0800, David Yu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 04:24:45PM +0100, António P. P. Almeida wrote: > > > > > > > > > > able to talk HTTP/1.1 to backends, in particular it now > > > > > > > > No, to keep backend connections alive you need module _and_ patch. > > > > that can be set in the global variable “errno” and stands for Error No > > > > Parse. Since you didn’t get it, I can thus conclude that unlike me you are > > > > probably > > > > a normal, well adjusted human being 😉 Actually, this definition isn’t true: there is no such error code, it’s rather imitation. The fact that author of definition claims it’s real error indicate that unlike me, he is normal, well adjusted human being. 😉 > Now I get it. Well adjusted I am. Now you may try to finally explain what you mean to ask in your original message. Please keep in mind that your are talking to somebody far from being normal and well adjusted. 😉 Maxim D. p.s. Actually, I assume you are talking about fastcgi multiplexing. Short answer is: no, it’s still not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/10 "2011-08-02T21:10:12Z")
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Maxim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Maxim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fastcgi and http. > > > > > Parse. Since you didn’t get it, I can thus conclude that unlike me you > > > > > Now you may try to finally explain what you mean to ask in your > > > > > original message. Please keep in mind that your are talking to > > > > > somebody far from being normal and well adjusted. 😉 > > Maxim D. > > p.s. Actually, I assume you are talking about fastcgi > multiplexing. Nope not fastcgi multiplexing. Multiplexing over a custom/efficient nginx binary protocol. Where requests sent to upstream include a unique id w/c the upstream will also send on response. This allows for asychronous, out-of-bands, messaging. I believe this is what mongrel2 is trying to do now … though as an http server, it is nowhere near as robust/stable as nginx. If nginx implements this (considering nginx already has a lot of market share), it certainly would bring more developers/users in (especially the ones needing async, out-of-bands request handling) Short answer is: no, it’s still not possible. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/11 "2011-08-03T05:57:45Z")
Hi Could nginx keepalive work with HealthCheck? Does Maxim D. have a support plan? ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 4:49am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/12 "2011-08-03T04:49:53Z")
Hi, I use nginx 0.8.54 together with latest keepalive module and ajp module to build proxy for java runtime, and notice when “accept mutax” is on, the number of upstream connections is 10 to 20 times of that when “accept mutax” is off. The test environment is 2 CPU cores, 4G RAM. Nginx conf: worker\_processes 2; http { upstream java\_server { server 127.0.0.1:8009 srun\_id=jvm1; keepalive 500 single; } ``` server { listen 80 default; server_name xxx.xxx.xxx location /index.jsp { ajp_intercept_errors on; ajp_hide_header X-Powered-By; ajp_buffers 16 8k; ajp_buffer_size 8k; ajp_read_timeout 30; ajp_connect_timeout 20; ajp_pass java_server; } } ``` } I use ab -c 100 -n 50000 XXXX to simulate visit, and netstat -an | grep 8009 -c to see how many connections to upstream is built. when “accept mutax” is on, there is 28473 connections to upstream, but only 1674 connections when “accept mutax” is off. If there is only on work process, the result is similar to “accept mutax” is off. Captures packets: When “accept mutax” is off, It is clear that it is upstream server who closes the connection: 2169 0.215060 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 41621 \> 8009 [ACK] Seq=1333 Ack=4654 Win=42496 Len=0 TSV=1513155905 TSER=1513155905 12474 15.216063 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 8009 \> 41621 [FIN, ACK] Seq=4654 Ack=1333 Win=42496 Len=0 TSV=1513159655 TSER=1513155905 12499 15.223667 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 41621 \> 8009 [FIN, ACK] Seq=1333 Ack=4655 Win=42496 Len=0 TSV=1513159657 TSER=1513159655 12500 15.223672 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 8009 \> 41621 [ACK] Seq=4655 Ack=1334 Win=42496 Len=0 TSV=1513159657 TSER=1513159657 When “accept mutax” is on, it comes to nginx: 5966 1.479476 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 54788 \> 8009 [ACK] Seq=297 Ack=1035 Win=34944 Len=0 TSV=1513225689 TSER=1513225689 6008 1.483907 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 54788 \> 8009 [FIN, ACK] Seq=297 Ack=1035 Win=34944 Len=0 TSV=1513225690 TSER=1513225689 6012 1.484331 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 8009 \> 54788 [FIN, ACK] Seq=1035 Ack=298 Win=34944 Len=0 TSV=1513225690 TSER=1513225690 6013 1.484342 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 TCP 54788 \> 8009 [ACK] Seq=298 Ack=1036 Win=34944 Len=0 TSV=1513225690 TSER=1513225690 I fix this by simply adding a test in the ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive\_close\_handler static void ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive\_close\_handler(ngx\_event\_t \*ev) { ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive\_srv\_conf\_t \*conf; ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive\_cache\_t \*item; ``` int n; u_char buf; ngx_connection_t *c; ngx_log_debug0(NGX_LOG_DEBUG_HTTP, ev->log, 0, "keepalive close handler"); c = ev->data; item = c->data; conf = item->conf; if ((n = c->recv(c, &buf, 1)) == 0) { ngx_queue_remove(&item->queue); ngx_close_connection(item->connection); ngx_queue_insert_head(&conf->free, &item->queue); } ``` } However, I never understand why it fires the event handler. This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you received this email in error, please delete it immediately and do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you. (κθ)ܺлϲܷɱȷռˣɾʼ벻ҪʽиƲκ;͸¶ʼ֮ݡлл ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 9:38am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/13 "2011-08-03T09:38:51Z")
Hello! On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:49:10AM +0800, 卫越 wrote: > I use nginx 0.8.54 together with latest keepalive module and ajp > module to build proxy for java runtime, and notice when “accept > mutax” is on, the number of upstream connections is 10 to 20 > times of that when “accept mutax” is off. Code you provided suggests you’ve not using latest keepalive module but rather something like 0.2 Current version is 0.4. Check similar to one your (but correct one) was added in upstream keepalive module 0.3, see [1]. [1] [ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive: 9a4ee6fe1c6d](http://mdounin.ru/hg/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive/rev/9a4ee6fe1c6d) Maxim D. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 7:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/14 "2011-08-03T07:21:45Z")
Ive been testing this on my localhost and one of my live servers (http backend) for a good week now, I haven’t had any issues that I have noticed as of yet. Servers are Debian Lenny and Debian Squeeze (oldstable, stable) Hoping it will make it into the developer (1.1.x) branch soon 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/15 "2011-08-04T02:08:06Z")
Hi, I’m trying to use keepalive http connections for proxy\_pass directives containing variables. Currently it only works for named upstream blocks. I’m wondering what would be the easiest way, maybe setting peer-\>get to ngx\_http\_upstream\_get\_keepalive\_peer and kp-\>original\_get\_peer to ngx\_http\_upstream\_get\_round\_robin\_peer() towards the end of ngx\_http\_create\_round\_robin\_peer(). If I can figure how to set kp-\>conf to something sane this might work 🙂 Thoughts ? Thank you, Matthieu. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 8:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/16 "2011-08-04T08:52:47Z")
Hello! On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 05:06:56PM -0700, Matthieu T. wrote: > If I can figure how to set kp-\>conf to something sane this might work 🙂 > > Thoughts ? You may try to pick one from upstream’s main conf upstreams array (e.g. one from first found upstream with init set to ngx\_http\_upstream\_init\_keepalive). Dirty, but should work. Maxim D. > > Servers are Debian Lenny and Debian Squeeze (oldstable, stable) > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:53:30AM +0800, David Yu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Testing is appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > > > > ENOPARSE is a nerdy term. It is one of the standard C library error > > > > * * * > > > > nginx mailing list > > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > > [mailman.nginx.org archive](http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx) ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 11:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/17 "2011-08-03T11:52:27Z")
I have checked the codes in 0.3 and in additional “c-\>close” check in 0.4, it’s OK to me. I suggest the archive should always keep up with the change log, and I have checked out that it is updated now. Thank you. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] 代表 Maxim Dounin 发送时间: 2011年8月3日 15:38 收件人: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 主题: Re: upstream keepalive close connections actively Hello! On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:49:10AM +0800, 卫越 wrote: > I use nginx 0.8.54 together with latest keepalive module and ajp > module to build proxy for java runtime, and notice when “accept > mutax” is on, the number of upstream connections is 10 to 20 > times of that when “accept mutax” is off. Code you provided suggests you’ve not using latest keepalive module but rather something like 0.2 Current version is 0.4. Check similar to one your (but correct one) was added in upstream keepalive module 0.3, see [1]. [1] [ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive: 9a4ee6fe1c6d](http://mdounin.ru/hg/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive/rev/9a4ee6fe1c6d) Maxim D. * * * nginx mailing list [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > **[mailman.nginx.org archive](http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/)** ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 6:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/18 "2011-08-08T06:44:54Z")
Been testing this on my servers now for 2 days now, handling approximately 100mbit of constant traffic (3x20mbit, 1x40mbit). Havent noticed any large bugs, had an initial crash on one of the servers however havent been able to replicate. The servers are a mixture of openvz, XEN and one vmware virtualised containers running debian lenny or squeeze, Speed increases from this module are decent, approximately 50ms from the request time and the HTTP download starts 200ms earler resulting in a 150ms quicker load time on average. all in all, seems good. Thanks for all your hard work Maxim. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 11:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/19 "2011-08-08T11:36:26Z")
50ms per HTTP request (taken from firebug and chrome resource panel) as the time it takes the html to load from request to arrival. 200ms is the time saved by when the http starts transfering to me (allowing other resources to begin downloading before the HTML completes), previously the html only started transfering after the full request was downloaded to the proxy server (due to buffering) HTTP to talk to the backends (between countries) The node has a 30-80ms ping time between the backend and frontend. (Russia-\>Germany, Sweden-\>NL, Ukraine-\>Germany/NL etc) ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2011, 11:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170/20 "2011-08-08T11:22:50Z")
Hello! On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:44:12PM +1000, SplitIce wrote: > Been testing this on my servers now for 2 days now, handling approximately > 100mbit of constant traffic (3x20mbit, 1x40mbit). > > Havent noticed any large bugs, had an initial crash on one of the > servers however havent been able to replicate. The servers are a mixture of > openvz, XEN and one vmware virtualised containers running debian lenny or > squeeze, By “crash” you mean nginx segfault? If yes, it would be great to track it down (either to fix problem in keepalive patch or to prove it’s unrelated problem). > Speed increases from this module are decent, approximately 50ms from the > request time and the HTTP download starts 200ms earler resulting in a 150ms > quicker load time on average. Sounds cool, but I don’t really understand what “50ms from the request time” and “download starts 200ms earler” actually means. Could you please elaborate? And, BTW, do you use proxy or fastcgi to talk to backends? Maxim D. > > > If I can figure how to set kp-\>conf to something sane this might work 🙂 > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Maxim D. \< > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able to talk HTTP/1.1 to backends, in particular it now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx\_http\_upstream\_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz](http://mdounin.ru/files/ngx_http_upstream_keepalive-0.4.tar.gz) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With a custom nginx upstream binary protocol, I believe > > > > > > > > > > Error No > > > > > > > > > > Now I get it. Well adjusted I am. > > > > > > > > > > Nope not fastcgi multiplexing. Multiplexing over a custom/efficient > > > > > > > > > > share), it certainly would bring more developers/users in (especially > > > > > > > > > > > > [mailman.nginx.org archive](http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx) > > – > Warez Scene [http://thewarezscene.org](http://thewarezscene.org) Free Rapidshare > Downloads[http://www.nexusddl.com](http://www.nexusddl.com) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/upstream-keepalive-call-for-testing/210170.md?page=2)