Failed to set RDP launch token timeout
Hi, Recently I have deployed F5 APM access policy for non-corporate Windows/Mac device(BYOD) connect to their corporate Windows workstation. However, after setting policy, I have tried to logon using BYOD and the RDP connection is keeping connection about , and the Access Reports mentioned that Failed to set RDP launch token as below. Here is the RDP profile for Access Policy (just for test firstly, after okay, we will enable SSO to logon) As for now, no idea how to troubleshoot, your advice/suggestion will be very appreciated, many thanks
Unable to install firmware OS and drop at 10%
info: >++++ result: info: >---- info: tm_install::RPM::rpm_db_find_by_namearch -- not found : MySQL-shared/i686 error: tm_install::Product::get_package_db -- package MySQL-shared (i686) has been lost. error: db-based package set requested; no db exists. error: couldn't get package list file for LTM.ROS.SAM.SUM.TS.WA.WOC group Terminal error: Failed to install. *** Live install end at <timestamp-removed> failed (return code 255) *** Please let me know when you faced this issue or root cause.
BIGIP only stacks about 5000 ASM logs.
This is the r4600 equipment. I found that the logs only stack 2GB because r series uses tenant, virtual machine. Even if it's 2GB, it's too little to stack up to only about 5000 logs. Even these 5000 are for just one day. Whenever I open a case regarding logs, F5 says that BIGIP is not log stacking equipment, so have a separate logging server. So I don't know how to solve this problem. Is the data in Traffic Learning related to the logging disk? If you have experienced the same as me, please advise. Thank you.
cross platform migration issue
Hi, we want to migrate the config from iseries 4K to rseries 5k . The current software version on iseries is 13.x.. I tried to run bigip v15.x on rseries, then export the config from iseries and import it into rseries, but not successful, there were some errors. Can someone please advise how should I do to make the migration successful? Thanks in advance!
Scenarios where Service Policy should be used over iRule and Vice versa
can anyone help me with some examples where service policy should be used instead of using an iRule and vice versa but remember example should be where requirement can be acheived using both service policy and irule but wanted to know where service policy is best fit over irule and example where iRule is best fit over service policy
Clarifying queue_depth_limit and queue_time_limit Recommendations for Large Pool Configuration
Hi everyone, I've come across several F5 DevCentral discussions and docs recommending smaller queue_depth_limit percentages (typically 0.05%–0.1%) for large pools (e.g., 10–100 members). The reasoning seems to be: Large pools have a higher total connection capacity, so smaller percentages are enough to handle burst traffic without causing memory strain. Smaller pools, with fewer total connections, can tolerate higher queue depths (e.g., up to 0.5%) because the overall load is more contained. Could anyone confirm if this aligns with real-world best practices? And are there any production examples where tuning beyond these ranges made a meaningful impact? Also, I'm looking for guidance on queue_time_limit tuning: I understand that the default of 0 means “unlimited wait time,” but in practice, that's usually not desirable. Some sources suggest setting it slightly higher than the average backend response time, but below the typical client timeout threshold. For example, for apps that occasionally spike to 10–20s delays, a queue_time_limit of 30,000–40,000ms might be appropriate. Can anyone share their experience on what queue_time_limit values worked best in interactive or high-traffic environments? Are there general thresholds or formulas you follow? Appreciate any input or examples from your deployments. Thanks!
Multiple http_request event with http::respond
Hello, I need to make two iRules on the same VS. The two are http_request triggered events with http::respond. When I'm doing this it's making a conflict between them. One is working well and the other one is working until it need to send me the http::respond instead of sending me the page I choose the client side receive an error "This site can’t be reached" in the browser side. Is there a solution to this ? Thanks :)
