The programmers currently use a file to specify the IP of the remote SQL
server. As a work around for the time being I have added a 2nd interface to the
front end server and the remote SQL server.
These are the errors we get when we hit the 65k limit.
mysqli_connect(): Can't connect to MySQL s
Ohh I missed the whole idea that nginx is used as tcp balancer for mysql.
But imo it is still more simple (unless you can't do anything with the DB
server) to balance the remote server rather than split and bind local clients:
upstream backend {
least_conn;
server ip1:3306;
server ip2:3306;
On 16/05/2019 16:51, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16/05/2019 16:46, Brandon Mallory wrote:
>> This is a very busy server and tried to push our programming
>> department to move to persistent connections, they feel that it
>> could be a security issue if dealing with sensitive information
>>
> I love nginx and use it for other applications but maybe its the wrong
> product for this senerio
Does nginx connect to mysql (like you use some kind of embedded module
(perl/lua etc)?) or do you proxy some backend app?
If not then it has no relation to this issue.
> We do not have an issue
That is what I was thinking, I am having an issue with the listen directive,
what should I use since the local port is "random" also for
split_clients "$remote_addr$remote_port" $split_ip
I cant use remote address since its a local address ?? same with port ?
This is what I have been trying
Hi,
On 16/05/2019 16:46, Brandon Mallory wrote:
> This is a very busy server and tried to push our programming
> department to move to persistent connections, they feel that it
> could be a security issue if dealing with sensitive information
> since that connection could be hijacked. We do not ha
This is a very busy server and tried to push our programming department to move
to persistent connections, they feel that it could be a security issue if
dealing with sensitive information since that connection could be hijacked. We
do not have an issue on the mysql server side with Port Exhaust
> Yes all of those changes you have mentioned have been made.
Well imo there is nothing else besides to even more decrease the FIN timeout
(in a LAN that shouldn't be an issue (no slow clients)) so the lingering
sockets are closed faster.
Also instead of adding the network adapter(s) on the w
Yes all of those changes you have mentioned have been made.
Thanks
Brandon
Best Regards,
Brandon Mallory
Network & Systems Engineer
MEDENT EMR/EHR
15 Hulbert Street
Auburn, NY 13021
Phone: [ callto:(315)-255-0900 | (315)-255-0900 ]
Fax: [ callto:(315)-255-3539 | (315)-255-3539 ]
Web:
> We have made all the changed we could in the kernel to help with this but
> still hitting limits.
What changes have you made?
Usually the port limit is reached because of time wait sockets.
If not done already try with:
net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1028 65535
net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1
net.
I have recently moved our sql server off of our webserver and now we are
experiencing Port Exhaustion. We have made all the changed we could in the
kernel to help with this but still hitting limits. I have added a 2nd
virtual network adapter, I am now trying to "load balance" the lan
connection bet
11 matches
Mail list logo
