HAProxy on 1.2.3-RELEASE - Successful!!!

kamus

thank you so much for shared this information, would be nice if in future versions of haproxy could be able to change these values. by the way I have noticed that current package, service restart function do not reload haproxy, I have to do manually and then run start from web interface and well, menwhile, I will continue working to up haproxy statistics in web interface. regards

rkelleyrtp

No problem - glad to help.

One clarification to my earlier post - it appears you CAN set the value when checking the status of your backend servers. I completely missed it! Look for the "Check inter" entry box on the Servers tab (double click on the server name then look toward the bottom). In fact, you can set this value per server.

BTW - I am hoping to catch up with the author of haProxy so we can discuss some of these issues. I ran into another bug this morning…

rkelleyrtp

@kamus:

by the way I have noticed that current package, service restart function do not reload haproxy, I have to do manually and then run start from web interface and well, menwhile, I will continue working to up haproxy statistics in web interface. regards

Make sure the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/haproxy.sh file has the correct "enable" setting. By default, it is disabled and won't start. Edit the file and make sure the line reads:

haproxy_enable=${haproxy-"YES"}

That should fix your start/stop problems.

kamus

@rkelleyrtp:

No problem - glad to help.

One clarification to my earlier post - it appears you CAN set the value when checking the status of your backend servers. I completely missed it! Look for the "Check inter" entry box on the Servers tab (double click on the server name then look toward the bottom). In fact, you can set this value per server.

BTW - I am hoping to catch up with the author of haProxy so we can discuss some of these issues. I ran into another bug this morning…

great! heheh. I have been searching "Check Inter" entrybox but I can't see it, maybe we are using different versions (currently I'm working on 1.2.3 and haproxy 0.26)
–---------------
I haven't see it that a new version has been released! hehe, now I can see it :). I will try some tests with this new version. Thanks!

Itwerx

Quick question for anyone hosting multiple websites, (and web servers). It appears that if two back-end servers are used that there is a bug in the way the inbound requests are handled? (FYI we are using multi-WAN config and CARP).

Here's an example:

Frontends:
abcco.com-WAN1
xyzco.com-WAN1
abcco.com-WAN2
xyzco.com-WAN2

Servers:
abcco.com-DMZ 10.1.1.1: active abcco.com-WAN1 1
abcco.com-WAN2
abcco.com-DMZ 10.2.2.1: active xyzco.com-WAN1 1
xyzco.com-WAN2

The home page of each site is proxied properly but pages linked within the site all seem to go to one back-end server, (and get 404s if they're for the site not hosted on that server of course.)

Ideas?

rkelleyrtp

Can you post your full haproxy config file?

For what its worth, I changed our config to host two separate back-end clusters and it has been working beautifully. Here is our config:

more haproxy.cfg

global
maxconn 1000
uid 80
gid 80
nbproc 1
chroot /var/empty
daemon

listen Cluster1
bind 20.30.40.51:80
mode http
log global
option dontlognull
option forwardfor
maxconn 10000
clitimeout 3000
balance roundrobin
contimeout 6000
srvtimeout 6000
retries 2
option httpchk HEAD /index.html HTTP/1.0
server WEBSVR-1 10.1.1.11:80 check inter 10000 weight 1
server WEBSVR-2 10.1.1.12:80 check inter 10000 weight 1

listen Cluster2
bind 20.30.40.52:80
mode http
log global
option dontlognull
option forwardfor
maxconn 10000
clitimeout 3000
balance roundrobin
contimeout 6000
srvtimeout 6000
retries 2
option httpchk HEAD /index.html HTTP/1.0
server WEBSVR-3 10.1.1.21:80 check inter 10000 weight 1
server WEBSVR-410.1.1.22:80 check inter 10000 weight 1

BTW - if you look closely, you will see a global option called "nbproc". The current pfsense haproxy package calculates this based upon the # of CPUs on your firewall, and spawns an haproxy thread for each CPU. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this can cause undue logging to your back-end servers. Just something to keep in mind…

Itwerx

@rkelleyrtp
Except those are listening on different public IPs. (Sorry, I should have clarified this is for a single public IP address. :)
To clarify further, we currently are using Apache reverse proxy to handle inbound requests to a single IP address assigned to multiple sites. Apache does a good job of reading the site address out of the request header and redirecting to the correct internal server. Only problem is it is slo-o-ow, (and HAproxy is rly-fst! :)
Is this not a good job for HAproxy…?

rkelleyrtp

Itwerx:

So, are you asking if haproxy can read the incoming http header and forward to the appropriate back-end server(s) when a single IP Address is used? I think what you are looking for are ACLs inside haproxy. Here is a quick link:

http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/02/load-balancing-in-amazon-ec2-with.html

Essentially, you have a single IP address on the outside (your "listen" address) and multiple servers on the back-end. Since haproxy can read the http header request, it can make intelligent decisions as to where the requests should go. From that link above, you define your frontend section like this:

frontend myfrontend *:80
log global
maxconn 25000
option forwardfor
acl acl_example1 url_sub example1
acl acl_example2 url_sub example2
use_backend example1_farm if acl_example1
use_backend example2_farm if acl_example2
default_backend default_farm

This creates ACLs (access-control-lists) that match the incoming HTTP header. Next, setup your back-end section to route the requests:

backend example1_farm
mode http
balance roundrobin
server server1 192.168.1.1:80 check
server server2 192.168.1.2:80 check
backend example2_farm
mode http
balance roundrobin
server server3 10.0.0.3:80 check
server server4 10.0.0.4:80 check
backend default_farm
mode http
balance roundrobin
server server5 192.168.1.5:80 check
server server6 192.168.1.6:80 check

Hope this helps…

-Ron

Koti

Yup its working fine for me also.

SyRenity

Hi.

Can anyone using haproxy comment how well it compares to inbound Load Balancing?

What is the improvement in concurrent connections, used CPU, etc…

Thanks!

Itwerx

For anyone installing this on a clean load of pfSense there's actually one additional rule needed allowing HTTP (or whatever), in to the internal servers. I.e. the same rule you would have for a standard NAT even though there is no NAT defined. (This is contrary to what is stated in the first post in this thread.)

Arjen

Any support for full transparent proxy mode ? :

aka: source 0.0.0.0 use src client

Regards.

Arjen

sam_son

Single IP address - multiple back end servers.

Is it possible for me to do the following.

I thought it best to add it to this post rather than start another.

Basically the 192.168.5.2 server has a combination of both http & https for authentication. It is an appliance box and when initially logging in via an http url having done so this then changes to https.

I have no clue at this point how to proceed with the configuration so if someone could enlighten me with some configuration example that would be great. I appreciate you are all busy but getting the answer to this question would help my little office out no end.

I would ideally like if possible the url access to be

http://81.81.81.81/server1 to redirect to 192.168.5.1 back end server
http://81.81.81.81/server2 to redirect to 192.168.5.2 back end server

Is this similar to port forwarding or can haproxy forward all ports using the url. This may be on the vague side but I'm sure there will be someone equally as clueless as myself with haproxy.

![HAproxy single IP address.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/HAproxy single IP address.png)
![HAproxy single IP address.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/HAproxy single IP address.png_thumb)

sam_son

Ok having read the initial post would this be correct? I have a little test rig in the office and between my daily work I sometimes have time to tinker with this kit. I have been scouring google and not come up with anything concrete with regards to overcoming the https question. Other posts have mentioned about using stunnel but the link here

http://agiletesting.blogspot.com/2009/02/load-balancing-in-amazon-ec2-with.html

says

SSL

To handle SSL traffic in HAProxy, you need 3 things:

Define a frontend with a unique name which handles *:443
Send traffic to real_server_IP_1:443 through real_server_IP_N:443 in the backend(s) associated with the frontend
Specify 'mode tcp' instead of 'mode http' both in the frontend section and in the backend section(s) which handle port 443. Otherwise you won't see any SSL traffic hitting your real servers, and you'll wonder why….

------ Would the follwing be correct?

Configure HAProxy using default values except the following:
--> On Settings Tab:
--> Enable HAProxy
--> DO NOT USE REMOTE SYSLOG HOST (bug in current version of pfSense haproxy package)

--> On Frontend Tab:
--> 10.10.10.1 (fictitious VIP)

--> On Servers Tab:
--> 192.168.5.1
--> 192.168.5.2

Configure the firewall rule - very impt!
--> On the Firewall-->Rules tab
--> New rule -
--> Protocol=any
--> Source=Any
--> Port=80
--> Destination=CARP VIP 10.10.10.1
--> On the Firewall-->Rules tab
--> New rule -
--> Protocol=any
--> Source=Any
--> Port=443
--> Destination=CARP VIP 10.10.10.1

ACL
frontend myfrontend *:80
log global
maxconn 25000
option forwardfor
acl acl_example1 server1 example1
acl acl_example2 server2 example2
use_backend example1_farm if acl_example1
use_backend example2_farm if acl_example2
default_backend default_farm

I’m a little confused, will haproxy take the http header and pass both http&https requests.
I have assumed that I would need to add the 443 port rule to pfsense is this correct?

xeress

I'm also trying haproxy out. Though for some reason it's very slow looking at download speeds. A file of 2 mb is downloading with 15 kb/s thru haproxy though when i enter a simple NAT rule it's downloads with 1 MB/s . Latency on haproxy is very low (15ms).

For now it's an experimental cluster so no other traffic is going thru. Can someone help me out on this? HaProxy seems to be alot better then the build in load balancer looking at features.

(i do use a carp vip to the internet, and my webservers are using apache on a 192.168.2.0/24 network. All settings are pretty basic.)

nmaupu

Hi,

I also try to configure my pfsense box to reach my LAN backend webservers but it does not work as expected.
It seems my pfsense haproxy doesn't see my backends servers (unreachable from VIP, displayed in red in haproxy stats page).

I configured a public VIP (I tried IP alias and CARP configuration) with a port and 3 backends servers (reachable on LAN subnet) associated with this frontend.
I added a rule to allow traffic to go through the public VIP.

I can reach the stats page on the public VIP but all backends servers are desperatly red (as attached) :(

Here is my haproxy configuration :

global
maxconn 200
uid 80
gid 80
nbproc 2
chroot /var/empty
daemon

listen web-frontends
bind xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8080
mode http
log global
option dontlognull
option forwardfor
maxconn 200
clitimeout 120000
balance roundrobin
contimeout 120000
srvtimeout 30000
option httpchk HEAD HTTP/1.0
stats enable
stats uri /haproxy?stats
stats realm haproxyqstats
stats auth user:pass
server web1 192.168.0.1:80 check inter 1000 weight 1
server web2 192.168.0.2:80 check inter 1000 weight 1
server web3 192.168.0.3:80 check inter 1000 weight 1

Are there some more rules I have to add ?

Thanks,
Nicolas Maupu

haproxy-pfsense.png_thumb

nmaupu

For the record, I found my mistake and now, it is working like a charm !
I just forgot to add a non mandatory field : monitor URI - fail