Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[ADD] 'no strict-limits' option in haproxy.cfg #135

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

[ADD] 'no strict-limits' option in haproxy.cfg #135

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

josep-tecnativa
Copy link
Contributor

This is to prevent FD limit errors during startup.
This PR fix #134

@josep-tecnativa
[ADD] 'no strict-limits' option in haproxy.cfg
c2bcf46 
This is to prevent FD limit errors during startup.
@josep-tecnativa josep-tecnativa mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2024
Closed
@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

CI is red

@powerman
Copy link

LGTM

@josep-tecnativa
Copy link
Contributor Author

LGTM

I'm trying to fix CI before merge

@josep-tecnativa josep-tecnativa force-pushed the fix-haproxy-fd-limit-issue branch 7 times, most recently from ecbd217 to 3a786e2 Compare August 20, 2024 11:19
@josep-tecnativa
Copy link
Contributor Author

josep-tecnativa commented Aug 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Just for the record, the CI problems seems to be related this issue haproxy/haproxy#2684 posted by @proudier

@josep-tecnativa josep-tecnativa force-pushed the fix-haproxy-fd-limit-issue branch 2 times, most recently from 39f4d59 to ef51462 Compare August 20, 2024 11:37
@josep-tecnativa
Copy link
Contributor Author

We should consider downgrading until the issue is fixed.

@josep-tecnativa josep-tecnativa force-pushed the fix-haproxy-fd-limit-issue branch from ef51462 to be37c14 Compare August 21, 2024 07:18
@josep-tecnativa
Copy link
Contributor Author

ping @pedrobaeza this is ready to merge now

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

But this is undoing partially #130, but not removing root access. Is that "upgrade to TCP" totally needed for the general purpose? Anyway, everything (the upgrade to 3.0 and the HAProxy issue) seems to come from the same person, @proudier, so he can say if it's OK for him.

@proudier
Copy link
Contributor

Given the lack of activity on the HAproxy issue and the obvious need to fix the main branch, I have no problem with the changes of #130 being reverted.

For a clearer GIT history, I think the whole PR should be reverted instead of reverting the changes manually in different PR. If you're OK with this approach, I can create a "revert PR".

Upstream HAproxy images for version 2.2 and 2.3 already runs as root, so that part of the original PR isnt required anymore.

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

OK, let's revert it.

Mayi686
Mayi686 approved these changes Aug 26, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@Mayi686 Mayi686 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@pedrobaeza
Copy link
Member

Reverted to previous version.

@pedrobaeza pedrobaeza closed this Sep 9, 2024
@pedrobaeza pedrobaeza deleted the fix-haproxy-fd-limit-issue branch September 9, 2024 14:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Mayi686 Mayi686 Mayi686 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0.2.0 fails to start: [haproxy.main()] Cannot raise FD limit to 8094, limit is 1024
5 participants
@josep-tecnativa @pedrobaeza @powerman @proudier @Mayi686