Hey now. No need. He's just excited to upgrade. :) Perhaps he is having the issue described below. I would say, try the (unofficial) 5.2.9 patch on it. See if it fails. Anyone else, if you know how to hack a working patch out, go for it and let me know. I'll be setting up the php-fpm.org website in the next day or two and be posting all the patches for all the versions of PHP I can locatby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Looks like you discovered it being seeded before it was announced. Well, I am trying to take over the php-fpm project from Andrei right now. One of the things I'll try to do is get patches posted for each version of PHP, at least the final versions. If people make RC patches I'd post those too. Volunteering will be required for the coding and/or monetary contributions... we do need to moby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
Awesome! I'll inform Rasmus, see what is needed other than your email saying "okay it's BSD" I am totally up for taking over ownership of the code and sponsoring pushing it into PECL. Although I cannot code it, I will make sure it gets maintained. Andrei, would you allow me to take over the php-fpm.* domains? We can discuss it in private... I thank you for your work. Youby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
As I mentioned in my previous email... http://tinyurl.com/php-fpm-future I'd like to keep extending PHP-FPM. However, after talking to Rasmus in person right now, he said there is no gating factor other than the license. If Andrei himself switched it even to LGPL and got it into PECL that would get it adopted quicker. So Andrei, -please- help us out here. Change the license to somethinby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
As Andrei has disappeared, I'd like to keep the development of PHP-FPM active. That being said, I see the major things lacking being: a) Getting the license to be PHP compliant, working on getting it into the core (will be a nice political issue. I will try to talk to Rasmus today, actually, as he is in town giving a speech!) - I am not sure if we can change the license easily or not, witby mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
While that does look like a final... according to php.net (which would make it a headline) Stable Releases: Current PHP 5 Stable: 5.2.9 Release Candidates: 5.2.10 RC2 (June 11, 2009) 5.3.0 RC3 (June 11, 2009) Trust me, I am always up for more bugfixes, performance enhancements, functionality, and of course a php-fpm patch to merge into it. But I won't jump the gun :) You -could-by mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
5.2.10 is only RC still. I would wait for final for a patch. I wish Andrei would come back :) Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2009, at 3:52 PM, "fei" <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > > wait FPM patch for PHP 5.2.10...Thank ! > > Posted at Nginx Forum: http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?3,3029,3029#msg-3029 >by mike - Php-fpm Mailing List - English
is the cache enabled by default if the configure does not disable it out or in nginx.conf something is marked as "off" ? i would assume it's not active unless you set the parameters for the cache you want. 2009/6/16 Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:38:17PM +0800, XUFENG wrote: > >> Hi, >> What does --without-http-cache optioby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
Ive never seen it successfully work yet, but I would assume REMOTE_USER would be populated with domain\username (at least in my environment) First we need to get it up and stable and working. Then more features and maturity can be added :) Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Matteo Redaelli <lists@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > Ok, thanks > > It woulby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:45 PM, merlin corey<merlincorey@dc949.org> wrote: > How often do you really expect servers to go up and down? I think you > are correct, though, HUP can take a bit of time/resources. My point > is, are you really having upstreams die constantly? Seems like you > would have much worse problems than what it takes to HUP at that > point...by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM, merlin corey <merlincorey@dc949.org> wrote: > What is so wrong with this? Also, just for clarity (though I think > you meant it too) the external process can manage the upstreams.conf > and HUP nginx automatically! You might even be able to get something > like this going pretty quick with some small modifications to monit or > sometby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
Trying to figure out how to get it to allow authentication against KDCs without the machine actually being on the domain. That should allow me to test it personally a lot easier too, and then I plan on releasing it. The developer has actually joined the list too... On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Matteo Redaelli<lists@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > Ciao Michael, > > Any newby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I'm having an issue here. I was using this shorthand: try_files $uri $uri/ /index.php?q=$uri&$args; which would mean /about is /index.php?q=/about However, in the past, the rewrite is like this (and works great): if (!-e $request_filename) { rewrite ^/(.*)$ /index.php?q=$1 last; } where it would be /index.php?q=about Now, the app should handle "/about" just the sby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
If nginx exposed an API of sorts to dynamically add/remove servers from the upstream, this could be done via an external process without having to manually create some upstreams.conf file and HUP the server each time. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Avleen Vig<avleen@gmail.com> wrote: > This is something I would like very much too. But I'm not sure if doing it > inside nginx isby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I don't think that removes it and readds it. That sounds like he wants healthchecking (I do too) and currently it sounds like the answer is "do it outside of nginx, and then add the servers to the nginx config / include file as they come up and down and then restart/reload nginx) On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:25 AM, mingjiang huang<lirel.nginx@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
Definately. It would be a lot better than having to compile nginx custom for each module you want. Just a simple .so file or something that takes effect on a start or restart only still works better. Somehow doing it via graceful reload would be even better :) This way modules can be written and deployed any time. On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> wroby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I think I noticed this behavior too. The upstream didn't fail but it tried multiple in parallel anyway. On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:35 PM, "funkdoobiest" <nginx-forum@nginx.us> wrote: > Hi Maxim, > > Maxim Dounin Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- >> Hello! >> >> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 07:59:13AM -0400, >&by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I think 0.8.x should introduce pluggable modules. Then the distros could support a stripped down basic version with optional modules, and then just have a "module foo;" line or something in the nginx.conf. I don't think it would take too much overhead as it's only run during startup... On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Ian Hobson<ian@ianhobson.co.uk> wrote: > ehudros2 wrby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I support this. I'm funding a module for Kerberos auth and populaing remote user is the expected result of it. Allowing a plugin to set it properly is key otherwise the module must exist -and- nginx must be patched. Definately not ideal. On Jun 5, 2009, at 7:42 PM, Michal Kowalski <kowalski.michal@gmail.com> wrote: > hello, > > i'm doing different authorization mby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Jun 5, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Maxim Dounin <mdounin@mdounin.ru> wrote: > Hello! > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:12:50PM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 00:17 +0400, Maxim Dounin wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:36:36PM -0700, Michael Shadle wrote: >>> >>>> I have my normal fastby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Cliff Wells <cliff@develix.com> wrote: > Interesting. I was aware of the limitation Michael mentions, but > didn't realize this was the particular mechanism. So I assume that > "array-type" is indicated by the variable prefixes, i.e. fastcgi_*, > proxy_*, etc? See, there -is- a use case out there somewhere! :)by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Maxim Dounin <mdounin@mdounin.ru> wrote: > Hello! > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:36:36PM -0700, Michael Shadle wrote: > >> I have my normal fastcgi params in my main nginx.conf file, under server {} >> >> i.e.: >> >> fastcgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string; >> fastcgi_param REQUEST_METHOD $request_methby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I used to do that but realized I could do it the other way. First I'd like to know if this is even supported. Might be a tiny bug that could wind up messing up something else. Depending on the outcome, I'll probably wind up moving out the stuff to a fastcgi_params anyway, though. On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Cliff Wells <cliff@develix.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 12by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I have my normal fastcgi params in my main nginx.conf file, under server {} i.e.: fastcgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string; fastcgi_param REQUEST_METHOD $request_method; fastcgi_param CONTENT_TYPE $content_type; fastcgi_param CONTENT_LENGTH $content_length; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_NAME $fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param REby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
2009/5/30 Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>: > I believe this is joint effect of some libc malloc() and OpenSSL. You wouldn't happen to have any kind of debug info or a short C program to emulate this behavior so I can submit it to the OpenSSL team, do you? Since I want to get on their case about something else, I might as well kill two birds with one stone.by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
2009/5/30 Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>: > Yes. However, built-in OpenSSL session cache leads to memory fragmentation, > see http://marc.info/?t=120127289900027 Is this an OpenSSL bug? I think there's an OpenSSL bug I am hitting as well with Firefox 3.x (even using the ssl_protocols workaround) - if this is a bug in OpenSSL I'd like to go yell at them for both... :) > Aby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
Is there any reason for not enabling this? some sort of possible security risk? Seems like it saves a lot of negotiation overhead on each request This is what I mean by "SSL resumption" I think it's what you're talking about too. http://rdist.root.org/2009/03/10/note-to-wordpress-on-ssl/ 2009/5/29 Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:09:23by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
If so, is it enabled by default? How can I enable it?by mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:59 AM, John Morris <jman@ablesky.com> wrote: > When starting or restarting tomcat, our web application takes a couple of > minutes to initialize, during which time the tomcat connector is listening > on TCP 8080, but the application isn't ready to process requests. This is one example of "healthchecks" that would make nginx more robust fby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
I have lvs running a healthcheck every few seconds. Logging this for lengthy periods of time under debugging would wind up filling my disk... Is there any way to catch a specific error and log that under debug? I am getting what appears to be failures a few times a day sometimes on a simple echo "hi"; type script which I use for my healthcheck (to ensure PHP is processing) Iby mike - Nginx Mailing List - English
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|