Currently there's a slight annoyance (not sure I'd call it a bug) - we're behind a CDN and the wrong IP is being assigned from real_ip_header, because we're getting multiple IP addresses. Can the behavior be altered for this kind of case? in PHP, when dumping $_SERVER: ["HTTP_VIA"]=> string(127) "1.1 proxy1.company1.com, 1.1 somehost2.cdncompany.net:8000 (EdgePrism/3.7.2.8), 1.by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
i would recommend doing it transactionally. i think rsync can support this. that way you don't have servers out of sync. also use --delay-updates On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Ilan Berkner <iberkner@gmail.com> wrote: > This is probably the route I'm going to take... seems to be the most > recommended one. > > Thanks! > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Jonathan Langby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
i could see the draw for people to aggregate all their access logs through syslog remoting to a central logging server, that'd be kind of a neat way of handling it, but i'd be worried that the syslog infrastructure isn't designed for hundreds of messages per second or more (maybe it is, but that would worry me :)) On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Kingsley Foreman <kingsley@internode.com.au>by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I'd still be +1 for a syslog module/patch to be official If there's a way to fire off the message and forget about it so it doesn't block, then I don't see a problem (I wouldn't recommend it for access logging necessarily, but for error logging and such it would be nice?) On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Peter Leonov <gojpeg@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20.12.2009, at 19:50, Vinay Y s <liby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
quick regexp attempt - try escaping the ? - try \? On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:41 AM, jimxms <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: - rewrite ^/content.php?/(\w*)/(\w*)/(\w*)$ /content/$1/$2/$3 last; + rewrite ^/content.php\?/(\w*)/(\w*)/(\w*)$ /content/$1/$2/$3 last; _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginxby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Ryan Malayter <malayter@gmail.com> wrote: > A lot lof our in-house stuff had similar problems when we first > switched to a layer-7 load balancer, and cleanup was a pain. But the > apps are a lot > more portable and flexible as a result. Nice thing about nginx is it can behave as a layer 7 load balancer - for free. Just needs stronger healthchecby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I am fighting a cold and can't seem to get a handle on it and can't concentrate but a couple things I notice... <value name="max_children">200</value> = PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN i'd set that to 50, not 200 <value name="max_requests">1500</value> = PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS you used to have 15000. i'd set it to 500 On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:07 PM, tachu <tacby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
or just recipes on the wiki :) On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:32 PM, merlin corey <merlincorey@dc949.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote: >> Oh duh. :) >> >> I actually have a lot less for my django setup than that even. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:48 PM, merlin coreyby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
Oh duh. :) I actually have a lot less for my django setup than that even. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:48 PM, merlin corey <merlincorey@dc949.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Igor Sysoev <igor@sysoev.ru> wrote: >> >>> *) Feature: the conf/by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Igor Sysoev <igor@sysoev.ru> wrote: > *) Feature: the conf/fastcgi.conf for simple FastCGI configurations. What's the reasoning for this? Right now it's identical to fastcgi_params besides for no fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; Which I think should be kept as default, as it's probably the most standard way peoby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
again - the apache settings are useless. don't even worry about those. set the process manager as static and set the number of engines to roughly about how many php requests per second you expect to be processing. remember most decent php scripts will execute in less than 1 second, so you can handle more than one request inside of the window of 1 second optimally... so it's okay to fudge it a fewby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
maybe look at turning off persistent connections (if enabled) if not, perhaps they might be of benefit with that many php processes. i dunno. i don't use them ever and i haven't had an issue. On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Anatoly Pashin <anatoly.pashin@gmail.com> wrote: > Think you have too much mysql processes and you should look at my.cnf, > 'cause yours 24 mysqld processes eatsby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
yeah, you have 512 children setup. for a couple million hits per month, i'd set it down to.. 25? try to figure out how many people might be executing a php script at once roughly. i do multi-millions of requests per month and my largest pool is like 40 children... On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Dark <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > Tnx Mike > > Here it is : http://pastebin.com/mby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
i think i get core files but i don't have anything specific in ../configure for php or for php-fpm... i do have this in php-fpm.conf, not sure if it helps value name="rlimit_core" = unlimited (put it in XML, of course) On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Momchil Ivanov <slogster@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm seeing some segmentation faults and would like to know whereby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Pastebin this. The XML is stripped Sent from my iPhone On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:26 PM, "Dark" <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > Hello now will i come with the server-config. > > > <?xml version="1.0" ?> > - > All relative paths in this config are relative to php's install > prefix > - > Pid file > /usr/local/logs/php-fpm.pid >by mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Yeh. 1 million per month isn't anything. I do a something like 2-3 million per day (not wordpress and spread over 3 servers) with much less beefy specs. However one of the sites does have a lot of db queries and spaghetti code and might be close to the amount of load a wordpress install would use :) I have noticed drupal and forum software usually eats larger amounts of ram per php chilby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Apache like pm is not supported. Do you have 512 static setup? The XML was stripped. Post your whole config to pastebin. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 14, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Jason <jason.giedymin@gmail.com> wrote: > And for the record, that is a big box for wordpress. I've seen > smaller optimized systems (generally) run the #/month your quoting. > HW is cheap is no big deal,by mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Interesting. Is that explained in the screencast? I would be Interested to hear about what is implemented. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alobbs@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/12/2009, at 02:12, Michael Shadle wrote: > >> Don' you just mean in other words that Cherokee has FastCGI support >> for PHP? FPM isn't anything specific :) &gby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Don' you just mean in other words that Cherokee has FastCGI support for PHP? FPM isn't anything specific :) On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alobbs@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello there, > > I just wanted to drop a line to let you guys know that Cherokee > 0.99.35 has got FPM support. It is configured in the very same way as > a regular php-cgi. Here you haveby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:53 AM, fixxxer <fixxxerrr@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, i'm apologizing for my tone and reaction; i believe you're a nice > guy and try to do all the best you can. But your posts in .internals > just bring confusion to the dev team members; the initial purpose of > adding the fpm branch was to bring some attention and find someone to > maintain the code, anby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Akins, Brian <Brian.Akins@turner.com> wrote: > On 12/9/09 7:39 AM, "Michael Shadle" <mike503@gmail.com> wrote: >> something like Apache+mod_php vs. nginx+PHP-FPM > > To be fair, you should test Apache+fastcgi. It's the "official" way to run > it, although everyone stills seems to use mod_php. > > I have no doby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I got svn to check it out today. Someone must have checked in some bogus files for a bit when I was attempting to check it out. Takes -forever- to check out, doesn't it? :) They're really pushing the limits of svn I think! heh. I think now I can update the downloads page possibly with the three download options. the SVN repo from php.net, the launchpad URLs for 0.6.x series, and the legacy patchby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Alexey A. Rybak <alexey.rybak@gmail.com> wrote: > Guys, please, calm down. Don't look at this project in the terms of > ownership or independence or I-did-that-and-that or who-are-you and so > on. Finally it's BSD! We all want this project to be alive and we need > more unity and respect. I believe that the best future of the project > is to bby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
cool! I only use captures in one place but this might make things nicer. Is that $domain accessable to anything inside of that server {} block? even something inside of an include for example? On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Igor Sysoev <igor@sysoev.ru> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 04:51:33AM -0800, Michael Shadle wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Igor Sysoev <by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Igor Sysoev <igor@sysoev.ru> wrote: > Named server_name captures can be used since 0.8.25. What do you mean by 'named' _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org http://nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginxby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 AM, miradev <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > The reason for not using Apache for WP is twofold. Firstly, apache has a higher memory footprint making it unsuitable for us to scaling down to, for example, a 256MB slice. Secondly, I don't want it sharing the large apache threads and I haven't found a way of reliably running a second apache configuration alongside.by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Igor Sysoev <igor@sysoev.ru> wrote: > I believe FastCGI has appeared in circa 1999, when Apache's mod_php/mod_perl > were well known solutions, therefore, FastCGI was not widespread at those > times. FastCGI has got the second breath with lighttpd, then nginx. > BTW, initially I did not plan to support FastCGI: the first nginx's > FastCGI suppoby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Phillip Oldham <phill@activityhq.com> wrote: > Our production runs: > supervisord > php-fcgi, mysqld, memcached, and a number of python > "services" (our webapp layer) > monit > nginx, supervisord, sshd, other "system" level important daemons > which means if supervisord goes down for any reason, it'll only be doby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Phillip Oldham <phill@activityhq.com> wrote: > I'm still hoping to see SCGI in a future release. It would greatly simplify > my nginx + wsgi set-up! Yeah that seems to be people's "this is better than FCGI" but can't seem to get a lot of traction. _______________________________________________ nginx mailing list nginx@nginx.org http://nginxby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Alexey A. Rybak <alexey.rybak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM, fixxxer <fixxxerrr@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9 дек, 03:55, Michael Shadle <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> [..] >>> >>> conference talkby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|