Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
than any other?
Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box running FreeBSD 9, and
since I'm starting from scratch, I'm questioning all my
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
than any other?
Use stock UFS, just configure it properly. most importantly noatime.
Amount of cached data is more important than hit count. Unless
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
than any other?
That's an average of about 3 hits per
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
From: Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com
To: FreeBSD Questions List freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Best file system for a busy webserver
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month
--On August 16, 2012 6:02:57 PM +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system
Paul Schmehl writes:
That's an average of about 3 hits per second. If it's static pages
then pretty much anything will handle it easily (but please don't use
FAT). If it's dynamic then the whole problem is more complex than a
simple page rate. If that load is bursty it may make a
system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably
better than any other?
That's an average of about 3 hits per second. If it's static
pages then pretty much anything will handle it easily (but please don't
use FAT). If it's dynamic
--On August 16, 2012 9:42:30 PM +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org
wrote:
I don't even know where to begin. There's about 15G of data on the
server.
OK I would say there's no pressing reason to consider ZFS for this
purpose. You'd save a bit of time in crash recovery with no
On 08/16/2012 01:16 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably
better than any other?
With only 15G of data, I'd recommend
OK I would say there's no pressing reason to consider ZFS for this
another ZFS fanatics. it is about performance.
direction for a filesystem, at 15GB if performance ever becomes a problem a
RAID1 of SSDs with UFS would make it fly probably into the hundreds of hits
per second range.
the OCZ Vertex IIIs (About $1/G these days) wired into a *hardware*
RAID controller setup to mirror them. This gives you blazing speed
just like i would read some popular street PC newspaper.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.comwrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
than any other?
Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box
On 01/04/2012 11:10 AM, Dino Vliet wrote:
Hi all,
suddenly I'm facing this quest on freebsd 8. I need to bind my little webserver
running aolserver to port 80. In the past I was always using port 8080 and had
my router configured to forward requests on port 80 to the server on port 8080
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
Of course it depends on your apps, but unless you're doing some HUGE number
of connections, or your apps are not good, this will be MORE than
enough RAM and CPU.
(...)
Maybe turn this into a virtual host and make
Quoting C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
Of course it depends on your apps, but unless you're doing some
HUGE number of connections, or your apps are not good, this
will be MORE than enough RAM and CPU.
(...)
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:53 PM, eculp ec...@encontacto.net wrote:
Quoting C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote:
Of course it depends on your apps, but unless you're doing some HUGE
number of connections, or your apps are
I just saw this box that is being promoted as a gaming machine at a
great price and am considering it as a web-server.
In addition to having no information on the CPU as a server lack of
comfort with 6 cores and memory 8GB of memory that I am having a
problem with. I am not a gamer but I
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:31:05 -0500, ec...@encontacto.net wrote:
In addition to having no information on the CPU as a server lack of
comfort with 6 cores and memory 8GB of memory that I am having a problem
with. I am not a gamer but I have always assumed that a gaming machine
needs the
on the
distribution of memory for the 6 cores if there is such a thing. Is
it advantageous to have a multiple of 6 when ordering memory? (12, 18,
24)
As far as stability is concerned for a webserver, I don't see it as a
major concern. I'm sure some of my older machines of the last 15
years were less stable even
...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of eculp
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:31 AM
To: freebsd-questions
Subject: Opinion on using AMD Phenom II x6 1090t with Gigabyte 890BPA-UD3H and
8GB DDR-3 as a WebServer.
I just saw this box that is being promoted as a gaming
Of eculp
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:31 AM
To: freebsd-questions
Subject: Opinion on using AMD Phenom II x6 1090t with Gigabyte 890BPA-UD3H
and 8GB DDR-3 as a WebServer.
I just saw this box that is being promoted as a gaming machine at a
great price and am considering it as a web-server
Gary Gatten writes:
Yes, generally speaking more of something is always better, in
fact our government seems to think more debt is better than less.
However, if you're web apps only need xGB of RAM and y MIPS; what
benefit is it to have n * x RAM and n * y MIPS?
It is my
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:47:09 -0500, Edwin L. Culp W. wrote:
The price difference between a minimal design and something like this
usually not significant. So this is sounding more and more like a go.
Allow me a short addition:
Gaming machines usually put no emphasize on energy efficiency.
Subject: Re: Small webserver recommendations
There is a webserver bundled with a framework called web2py.
www.web2py.org. You can run it as a user from BSD or Linux.
-Nate Maier
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
There is a webserver bundled with a framework called web2py.
www.web2py.org. You can run it as a user from BSD or Linux.
-Nate Maier
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
: Small webserver recommendations
On Sun 2010-06-06 18:44:10 UTC+0100, peter harrison
(four.harris...@googlemail.com) wrote:
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
Anyone willing to make
On Sun 2010-06-06 18:44:10 UTC+0100, peter harrison
(four.harris...@googlemail.com) wrote:
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
Anyone willing to make a recommendation?
thttpd?
http
Hello!
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 7:44 PM, peter harrison
four.harris...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
Anyone willing to make a recommendation?
nginx?
http
Hello all,
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
Anyone willing to make a recommendation?
Thanks in advance,
Peter.
___
freebsd-questions
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:44 PM, peter harrison
four.harris...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
If you are using Perl, might as well use any
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:44 PM, peter harrison
four.harris...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
Anyone willing to make a recommendation?
lighttpd
...@freebsd.org questi...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Small webserver recommendations
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:44 PM, peter harrison
four.harris...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run
: Re: Small webserver recommendations
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:44 PM, peter harrison
four.harris...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking for a small webserver to add to a nanobsd image, so preferably
with few dependencies too. Needs to be able to run Perl cgi's as well.
Anyone willing
Perldroid ;-) !!!
Alex
Peter.
-Original Message-
From: Alejandro Imass a...@p2ee.org
Sent: 06 June 2010 19:58
To: peter harrison four.harris...@googlemail.com
Cc: questi...@freebsd.org questi...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Small webserver recommendations
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Razvan Cristea cristea.raz...@yahoo.comwrote:
Hello,
i have a webserver useing freebsd 7.2 and i user the same server to route
internet to a local network.
the internet on the local network is working fine but the sites from the
webserver are loading verry
odhia...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Odhiambo Washington odhia...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: webserver and natd
To: Razvan Cristea cristea.raz...@yahoo.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 1:07 PM
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Razvan Cristea cristea.raz...@yahoo.com
Hello,
i have a webserver useing freebsd 7.2 and i user the same server to route
internet to a local network.
the internet on the local network is working fine but the sites from the
webserver are loading verry slow.
i fave this configuration in rc.conf:
firewall_enable=YES
firewall_type
Razvan Cristea wrote:
Hello,
i have a webserver useing freebsd 7.2 and i user the same server to route
internet to a local network.
the internet on the local network is working fine but the sites from the
webserver are loading verry slow.
i fave this configuration in rc.conf
Razvan Cristea wrote:
Razvan Cristea wrote:
Hello,
i have a webserver useing freebsd 7.2 and i user the same server
to route internet to a local network.
the internet on the local network is working fine but the sites
from the webserver are loading verry
2009/8/28 Ruben de Groot mai...@bzerk.org
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:28:26PM -0400, APseudoUtopia typed:
Two more questions then I should be ready to go with my jail(s).
In order to minimize the HDD space of the jail, can I add things in my
src.conf such as
WITHOUT_BOOT, WITHOUT_ACPI,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:28:26PM -0400, APseudoUtopia typed:
Two more questions then I should be ready to go with my jail(s).
In order to minimize the HDD space of the jail, can I add things in my
src.conf such as
WITHOUT_BOOT, WITHOUT_ACPI, WITHOUT_PF?
Yes you can. Another option is to
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Erich Dollanskyer...@apsara.com.sg wrote:
Hi,
On 27 August 2009 am 11:10:37 Adam Vande More wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM, APseudoUtopia
apseudouto...@gmail.comwrote:
Also, how memory-intensive is a jail?
Very light when compared to other
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM, APseudoUtopia apseudouto...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Erich Dollanskyer...@apsara.com.sg
wrote:
Hi,
On 27 August 2009 am 11:10:37 Adam Vande More wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM, APseudoUtopia
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adam Vande Moreamvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM, APseudoUtopia apseudouto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Erich Dollanskyer...@apsara.com.sg
wrote:
Hi,
On 27 August 2009 am 11:10:37 Adam Vande More
Le 26/08/2009 à 22:59:34-0400, APseudoUtopia a écrit
Hello,
I have a small site which runs PostgreSQL, Nginx, and PHP. I'm looking
into running nginx inside a jailed host on my server for security
reasons (eg, if there is a hole in a php script).
The website root is actually a working
Hello,
I have a small site which runs PostgreSQL, Nginx, and PHP. I'm looking
into running nginx inside a jailed host on my server for security
reasons (eg, if there is a hole in a php script).
The website root is actually a working copy of my subversion
repository. I have svnserve running
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM, APseudoUtopia apseudouto...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I have a small site which runs PostgreSQL, Nginx, and PHP. I'm looking
into running nginx inside a jailed host on my server for security
reasons (eg, if there is a hole in a php script).
The website root is
Hi,
On 27 August 2009 am 11:10:37 Adam Vande More wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:59 PM, APseudoUtopia
apseudouto...@gmail.comwrote:
Also, how memory-intensive is a jail?
Very light when compared to other virtualization methods.
jails share the kernel but not the world.
So, there will
may be it will better to imagine that jail is a different computer, so
if your jail need connection to main host it will connect like other
computer that not running in jail.
you can do file:// from main host to jail but not from jail to main
host. As far I know jail is a method so memory
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:46:43AM -0400, Steve Bertrand typed:
John Almberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
You can fix the security problems by dumping Bind and using djbdns.
What security problems? This one ? :)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2812
I
Ruben de Groot wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:46:43AM -0400, Steve Bertrand typed:
John Almberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
You can fix the security problems by dumping Bind and using djbdns.
What security problems? This one ? :)
Peter Boosten wrote:
Ruben de Groot wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:46:43AM -0400, Steve Bertrand typed:
John Almberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
You can fix the security problems by dumping Bind and using djbdns.
What security problems? This one ? :)
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I like whatever works in regards to the situation I'm facing ;)
And that's the best possible reason one could have! ;-)
Peter
--
http://www.boosten.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
K You can fix the security problems by dumping Bind and using djbdns.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:16:24 +0200, Ruben de Groot replied:
R What security problems? This one ? :)
R http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2812
When BIND offers (and makes good
Karl Vogel wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
K You can fix the security problems by dumping Bind and using djbdns.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:16:24 +0200, Ruben de Groot replied:
R What security problems? This one ? :)
R http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2812
When BIND
On Monday 13 July 2009 14:27:46 Karl Vogel wrote:
It's very easy to set up a caching nameserver without using all the
memory on your system.
It's much easier to turn your HIGH-performance webserver into a slug, by
running stuff you don't need on the same machine. Memory unused
The other day, a FreeBSD 'expert' told me that it is important to
have the DNS server for a domain on the same server as the domain's
web server. Supposedly, this saves doing tons of DNS look ups over
the network. Instead, they are done locally.
This makes sense to me, but I wonder if the
In response to John Almberg jalmb...@identry.com:
The other day, a FreeBSD 'expert' told me that it is important to
have the DNS server for a domain on the same server as the domain's
web server. Supposedly, this saves doing tons of DNS look ups over
the network. Instead, they are done
John Almberg wrote:
The other day, a FreeBSD 'expert' told me that it is important to have
the DNS server for a domain on the same server as the domain's web
server. Supposedly, this saves doing tons of DNS look ups over the
network. Instead, they are done locally.
This makes sense to me,
On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:36 PM, John Almberg wrote:
The other day, a FreeBSD 'expert' told me that it is important to
have the DNS server for a domain on the same server as the domain's
web server. Supposedly, this saves doing tons of DNS look ups over
the network. Instead, they are done
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:36:42PM -0400, John Almberg wrote:
The other day, a FreeBSD 'expert' told me that it is important to
have the DNS server for a domain on the same server as the domain's
web server. Supposedly, this saves doing tons of DNS look ups over
the network. Instead,
locally.
Bogus. A high-performance webserver should not be doing DNS lookups, other
then application driven ones, like verification of email domains upon
registration. If having hostnames in the live logs is mandatory by some weird
company policy or the webserver does not provide a configuration
over
the network. Instead, they are done locally.
Bogus. A high-performance webserver should not be doing DNS
lookups, other
then application driven ones, like verification of email domains upon
registration. If having hostnames in the live logs is mandatory by
some weird
company policy
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:03:24 -0400,
Jon Radel j...@radel.com said:
J Apache and Bind have both had their security issues over the years, and
J there's something to be said for running them on different servers to
J reduce both the all eggs in one basket factor and the ease of
J spreading an
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:03:24 -0400,
Jon Radel j...@radel.com said:
J Apache and Bind have both had their security issues over the
years, and
J there's something to be said for running them on different
servers to
J reduce both the all eggs
John Almberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:03:24 -0400,
Jon Radel j...@radel.com said:
J Apache and Bind have both had their security issues over the years,
and
J there's something to be said for running them on different servers to
J
Steve Bertrand wrote:
[...snip...]
There is a single file in /etc/dnscache/root/ip, named 127.0.0.1
If you want this cache to serve internal /24 network queries:
% touch /etc/dnscache/root/ip/192.168.0
Need to add some clarification:
Adding the new empty file permits queries from the IP
On 4/18/09, APseudoUtopia apseudouto...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Andrew a...@awdcomp.net wrote:
...
If you choose to run php via FastCGI, check out PHP-FPM. It's a patch
that greatly speeds up php's FastCGI performance. It honestly does
help significantly. There's
It says that distro available at php.net has a number of known problems
related to using FastCGI SAPI in production servers. Also, it argues why
using FastCGI SAPI along with php-fpm is a good idea.
php-fpm addresses the following problems:
1. php daemonization
2. Process managing. Smooth php
Hi All,
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that will
run php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't allow me to run php.
TIA
Andrew
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
On Saturday 18 April 2009 08:19:46 Andrew wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that will
run php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't allow me to run php.
nginx + php over cgi. lighttpd seems popular too, personally find nginx more
Andrew пишет:
Hi All,
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that will
run php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't allow me to run php.
www/lighttpd and www/nginx(-devel) are definitely the most common choice
for a lightweight webserver that will
run php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't allow me to run php.
TIA
Andrew
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe
Most light weight webservers like nginx and lighttpd only run PHP as a
cgi mod.
Cheers,
m!
On Apr 18, 2009, at 2:19, Andrew a...@awdcomp.net wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that
will run php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't
and lighttpd only run PHP as a
cgi mod.
Cheers,
m!
On Apr 18, 2009, at 2:19, Andrew a...@awdcomp.net wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that
will run php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't allow me to run
php.
TIA
Andrew
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Mikel King wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that
will run php?
Most light weight webservers like nginx and lighttpd only run PHP as a
cgi mod.
With lighttpd, you can do both CGI and FastCGI:
http
You are right, thanks for the information
On 4/18/09, cpghost cpgh...@cordula.ws wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Mikel King wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that
will run php?
Most light weight webservers like nginx and lighttpd only run
On Saturday 18 April 2009 16:34:52 Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote:
As a fastcgi not cgi, there is a differenceimportant one.
for cgi request a new php process is started for a request.
fastcgi is php listening for network requests and process can be reused.
And the more important difference with
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Andrew a...@awdcomp.net wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone have any suggestions for a lightweight webserver that will run
php?
Apache is too bulky for what I need and thttpd won't allow me to run php.
TIA
Andrew
If you choose to run php via FastCGI, check out PHP
.htpasswd Failure .. htpasswd recreation also not working
I added a Location / for restricting access to my web site URL.
I used Basic Authentication module..
I created #htpasswd -c .htpasswd test
password : test
and restarted apache
Trying to figure out how to print a webpage on the server, without a gui..
On the local test webserver that we have we are trying to figure out how
we can from php (or anything else) print a webpage to a pdf..
Anyone have a clue as to how to do this?
Or is this some major php programming
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 07:35:03PM -0500, B. Cook wrote:
Trying to figure out how to print a webpage on the server, without a gui..
On the local test webserver that we have we are trying to figure out how
we can from php (or anything else) print a webpage to a pdf..
Anyone have a clue
Hi everyone,
I posted last week about my webserver hitting the kernel's max process
allowed (error : collecting pv entries -- suggest increasing
PMAP_SHPGPERPROC).
As a part of the solution, I decided to build a jail with a light
webserver dedicated to images requests, the biggest part
Francis Dubé wrote:
As a part of the solution, I decided to build a jail with a light
webserver dedicated to images requests, the biggest part of the requests
the server have to process. Most of the websites hosted on the server
have approximately 200 small images with a size between 1k
Francis Dubé wrote:
Hi everyone,
I posted last week about my webserver hitting the kernel's max process
allowed (error : collecting pv entries -- suggest increasing
PMAP_SHPGPERPROC).
As a part of the solution, I decided to build a jail with a light
webserver dedicated to images requests
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
They are both good static content servers. You can easily max out a GiGe
link using either. We use lighttpd more extensively than nginx, however we
do use both. Quite frankly, it's truthfully up to you. Performance wise,
they are on par with once another.
~Paul
Matthew Seaman([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.03 19:59:56 +:
Francis Dub? wrote:
Which one do you suggest and why ?
nginx. Lighttpd has remote security holes once in a while. nginx has
better security design and is more modular and faster. It happens to
also be feature-rich, which is not easy
They are both good static content servers. You can easily max out a GiGe
link using either. We use lighttpd more extensively than nginx, however we
do use both. Quite frankly, it's truthfully up to you. Performance wise,
they are on par with once another.
~Paul
at the risk of being
Hi,
I'm using mod_python3 and apache22 to create some scripts and access
them through a web interface.
The problem is that some of these scripts deal with configuration
files and some other tasks that require root privileges.
In the past, I've solved this issue by using sudo and
) If the configuration files allow 'includes', then include a file that is
writeable by the webuser. This will additionally allow you to restrict what
the webserver can change in the config of this application. Note, that
configuration files that are modifyable by root only, often are for a reason,
so this does
Hi,
I'm using mod_python3 and apache22 to create some scripts and access
them through a web interface.
The problem is that some of these scripts deal with configuration files
and some other tasks that require root privileges.
In the past, I've solved this issue by using sudo and allowing
Matias Surdi wrote:
I'm using mod_python3 and apache22 to create some scripts and access them
through a web interface.
The problem is that some of these scripts deal with configuration files and
some other tasks that require root privileges.
In the past, I've solved this issue by using
that is
writeable by the webuser. This will additionally allow you to restrict what
the webserver can change in the config of this application. Note, that
configuration files that are modifyable by root only, often are for a reason,
so this does not improve the security of the service being configured
', then include a file that is
writeable by the webuser. This will additionally allow you to restrict what
the webserver can change in the config of this application. Note, that
configuration files that are modifyable by root only, often are for a reason,
so this does not improve the security
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Seaman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Redd Vinylene wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Moises Castellanos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Redd Vinylene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I got this dedicated server which is
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Redd Vinylene [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Seaman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Redd Vinylene wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Moises Castellanos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Redd
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Redd Vinylene [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Redd Vinylene [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Seaman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Redd Vinylene wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Moises Castellanos
Redd Vinylene wrote:
Hello hello!
I got this dedicated server which is exposed to DDoS attacks quite
frequently. Say I need to host a website on it, is there any way of
telling how often it is actually online (to the rest of the world)?
Maybe make some sort of ping script from a remote server?
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Moises Castellanos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Redd Vinylene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello hello!
I got this dedicated server which is exposed to DDoS attacks quite
frequently. Say I need to host a website on it, is there any
Redd Vinylene wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Moises Castellanos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Redd Vinylene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello hello!
I got this dedicated server which is exposed to DDoS attacks quite
frequently. Say I need to host a website
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
