incorrect balancing in weight value 256
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
haproxy (Ubuntu) |
Expired
|
Medium
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Haproxy can work correctly with wight 256, the node with weight 256 either takes all the traffic or takes none traffic:
1-1 weight: web1:256, web2:1, web3:1 (incorrect case.)
(1024 accesses * 3 times to vip)
result 1
web1: 1024
web2: 0
web3: 0
result 2
web1: 1024
web2: 0
web3: 0
result 3
web1 counted: 1024
web2 counted: 0
web3 counted: 0
1-2 weight: web1:255, web2:1, web3:1 (correct case.)
(1024 accesses * 3 times to vip)
result 1
web1 counted: 1017
web2 counted: 4
web3 counted: 3
result 2
web1 counted: 1016
web2 counted: 4
web3 counted: 4
result 3
web1 counted: 1016
web2 counted: 4
web3 counted: 4
2-1 web1:256, web2:128, web3:128 (incorrect case.)
(256 accesses * 3 times to vip)
result 1
web1 counted: 1
web2 counted: 128
web3 counted: 127
result 2
web1 counted: 0
web2 counted: 128
web3 counted: 128
result 3
web1 counted: 0
web2 counted: 128
web3 counted: 128
2-2 web1:255, web2:128, web3:128(correct case.)
(256 accesses * 3 times to vip)
result 1
web1 counted: 128
web2 counted: 64
web3 counted: 64
result 2
web1 counted: 128
web2 counted: 64
web3 counted: 64
result 3
web1 counted: 128
web2 counted: 64
web3 counted: 64
From the haproxy aspect, they have fixed a bug of "Roundrobin can not work well when a server's weight is 256" , make sure that below patch has been used on above environment.
Mail of "Roundrobin can not work well when a server's weight is 256"
https://<email address hidden>
Patch:
https:/
Changed in haproxy (Ubuntu): | |
importance: | Undecided → Medium |
Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better.
By "make sure that below patch has been used on above environment" do you mean that you are running a patched version of haproxy, or are you proposing that this patch fixes the bug that you are reporting?
Is there a specific patch available upstream the fixes this bug, and if so, is it released upstream and if so which version? Otherwise, can someone report this bug upstream if it still applies please?
Once answered, please change the bug status back to New.