I've been looking into this a bit further and have found the following debug information: 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| AsyncCall.cc(85) ScheduleCall: ConnOpener.cc(132) will call fwdConnectDoneWrapper(local=0.0.0.0 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 flags=1, errno=110, flag=-4, data=0x90db7c88) [call34778883] 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| AsyncCallQueue.cc(51) fireNext: entering fwdConnectDoneWrapper(local=0.0.0.0 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 flags=1, errno=110, flag=-4, data=0x90db7c88) 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| AsyncCall.cc(30) make: make call fwdConnectDoneWrapper [call34778883] 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| FwdState.cc(402) fail: ERR_CONNECT_FAIL "Service Unavailable" 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| TCP connection to wwwproxy01.domain.local/8080 failed 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| FwdState.cc(609) retryOrBail: re-forwarding (0 tries, 30 secs) 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| FwdState.cc(373) startConnectionOrFail: http://webmail.tiscali.co.uk/cp/ps/Mail/commands/SyncFolder?d=tiscali.co.uk&u=firstname.surname01&t=29000 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| FwdState.cc(1080) connectStart: fwdConnectStart: http://webmail.tiscali.co.uk/cp/ps/Mail/commands/SyncFolder?d=tiscali.co.uk&u=firstname.surname01&t=29000 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| FwdState.cc(1203) connectStart: fwdConnectStart: got outgoing addr 0.0.0.0, tos 0 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| AsyncCall.cc(18) AsyncCall: The AsyncCall fwdConnectDoneWrapper constructed, this=0x8e0de0b0 [call34803025] 2014/02/19 10:58:13.021 kid1| AsyncCallQueue.cc(53) fireNext: leaving fwdConnectDoneWrapper(local=0.0.0.0 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 flags=1, errno=110, flag=-4, data=0x90db7c88) 2014/02/19 10:58:13.022 kid1| AsyncCall.cc(85) ScheduleCall: ConnOpener.cc(132) will call fwdConnectDoneWrapper(local=192.168.0.10:56359 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 FD 97 flags=1, data=0x90db7c88) [call34803025] 2014/02/19 10:58:13.022 kid1| AsyncCallQueue.cc(51) fireNext: entering fwdConnectDoneWrapper(local=192.168.0.10:56359 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 FD 97 flags=1, data=0x90db7c88) 2014/02/19 10:58:13.022 kid1| AsyncCall.cc(30) make: make call fwdConnectDoneWrapper [call34803025] 2014/02/19 10:58:13.022 kid1| FwdState.cc(1027) connectDone: local=192.168.0.10:56359 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 FD 97 flags=1: 'http://webmail.tiscali.co.uk/cp/ps/Mail/commands/SyncFolder?d=tiscali.co.uk&u=firstname.surname01&t=29411' 2014/02/19 10:58:13.022 kid1| FwdState.cc(1216) dispatch: local=192.168.0.10:8080 remote=10.133.49.121:4775 FD 89 flags=1: Fetching 'POST http://webmail.tiscali.co.uk/cp/ps/Mail/commands/SyncFolder?d=tiscali.co.uk&u=firstname.surname01&t=29000' 2014/02/19 10:58:13.022 kid1| AsyncCallQueue.cc(53) fireNext: leaving fwdConnectDoneWrapper(local=192.168.0.10:56359 remote=192.168.1.10:8080 FD 97 flags=1, data=0x90db7c88) Judging by the errno=110 it looks like I'm getting a "Connection timed out" from the parent for some requests. As I can't find a corresponding error in the logs on the parent that sounds quite likely. However, networking all looks good on both sides. Initiating server: bond0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:55:7D:90:14 inet addr:192.168.0.10 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MASTER MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:48264326 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:50472917 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:31676495378 (29.5 GiB) TX bytes:37324524265 (34.7 GiB) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:55:7D:90:14 UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:48143308 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:50472917 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:31668436400 (29.4 GiB) TX bytes:37324524265 (34.7 GiB) eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:55:7D:90:14 UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:121018 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:8058978 (7.6 MiB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Parent server: bond0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr AC:16:2D:76:4C:24 inet addr:192.168.1.10 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MASTER MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:100957917 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:110178407 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:74405340552 (69.2 GiB) TX bytes:74282360105 (69.1 GiB) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr AC:16:2D:76:4C:24 UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:100289600 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:110178407 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:74354605104 (69.2 GiB) TX bytes:74282360105 (69.1 GiB) Interrupt:32 eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr AC:16:2D:76:4C:24 UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:668317 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:50735448 (48.3 MiB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:36 The only other I can think is that the issue is being caused by a layer 3 device between the servers? Thanks Paul On 17 February 2014 14:56, Paul Carew <beavatronix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > I have recently upgraded our Squid servers from 3.3.11 to 3.4.3 and am > seeing the following error every few minutes in the cache log. > > 2014/02/17 13:43:02 kid1| TCP connection to wwwproxy02.domain.local/8080 failed > > I have 2 servers configured on the LAN which handle connections over a > private WAN and 2 other servers on another WAN connected to the > internet. The first 2 servers use the second pair of servers connected > to the internet as a parent with the following lines in squid.conf: > > cache_peer wwwproxy01.domain.local parent 8080 0 no-query no-digest carp > cache_peer wwwproxy02.domain.local parent 8080 0 no-query no-digest carp > > With 3.3.11 I occasionally got the error, maybe two or three times daily. > > Does anyone have any ideas why this might be occurring on 3.4.3 but > not 3.3.11? I've had a look at debug_options but can't see a section > that screams "debug me" for this particular error. Maybe section 11 or > 15? > > Many Thanks > > Paul
