Hi,
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 21:44 -0700, Praveen Yarlagadda wrote:
> Hi there!
>
>
> I'm playing around with nginx and I'm running into a problem related
> to image uploading. I have nginx as a load balancer and java server
> (jetty, spring based) as the backend server. When I upload an image
> (J
Hi there!
I'm playing around with nginx and I'm running into a problem related to
image uploading. I have nginx as a load balancer and java server (jetty,
spring based) as the backend server. When I upload an image (JPEG) using
POST method via nginx, the quality gets dropped a lot. Please take a l
No it works with port 4443 (I have opened it somewhere else) but am getting
another wget error message:
> wget https://videomail.io:4443/socket.io/socket.io.v0.9.11.js
--2013-03-29 14:35:00--
https://videomail.io:4443/socket.io/socket.io.v0.9.11.js
Resolving videomail.io (videomail.io)... 103.6.2
Im experiencing issues with compiling Nginx on Windows 7, every thing goes
good until nmake -f objs/Makefile.
I get the following error:
Generating Code...
link -lib -out:pcre.lib -verbose:lib pcre_*.obj
/usr/bin/link: invalid option -- l
Try `/usr/bin/link --help' for more information.
NM
Upgrade to >= squid 3.2, which seems to support HTTP/1.1 and you
will have your persistent connections with squid:
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/201108/0061.html
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Squid-3.2
___
Okay,
You, as others did, gave really good reason why haproxy + varnish + nginx
should be good together.
But seems a real hassle to setup and maintain...
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,237874,237911#msg-237911
___
nginx mai
There is backup servers, least_conn and other fancy things. Isn't it as
efficient as Haproxy (open question)?
The simple fact that you are not actually (externaly) able to tell if/how
many backends are down should answer your question.
You also have to use third party modules for active healt
On Wednesday 27 March 2013 16:34:27 praveenkumar Muppala wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a nginx1.0.5 version installed in our system. We are getting this
> error continuously in our nginx error log. ngx_slab_alloc() failed: no
> memory in cache keys zone "zone-xyz". I have increased this value to 20G,
>
Hello Nginx Users,
Now available: Nginx 1.3.15 For Windows http://goo.gl/RqVQ7 (32-bit and
64-bit versions)
These versions are to support legacy users who are already using Cygwin
based builds of Nginx. Officially supported native Windows binaries are at
nginx.org.
Announcements are also availab
Did anyone had problems with upstream modules ?
There is backup servers, least_conn and other fancy things. Isn't it as
efficient as Haproxy (open question)?
I read carefully, maybe not enough, what you all said, but, just cannot
understand how it comes nginx cannot perform as well as haproxy to
> Also, to the best of my understanding, both Linux kernel version and
network card present a lot of specifics in regards to how
> splice is used.
Kernel, yes. The fist splice was implemented in 2.6.17 but it was buggy. So
it is not recommended to use it.
Reimplementation was done in 3.5 and since
On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>> Why would you doubt that? Of course, my machines may be bigger than the
>> norm...
>
> Because nginx doesn't do tcp splicing. Is my assumption wrong; are you able to
> forward 20Gbps with nginx? Then yes, probably you have huge hardware, which
Did you tune the shared memory size in proxy_cache_path?
At 2013-03-27 20:34:27,"praveenkumar Muppala" wrote:
Hi,
We have a nginx1.0.5 version installed in our system. We are getting this error
continuously in our nginx error log. ngx_slab_alloc() failed: no memory in
cache keys zone "zon
> Why would you doubt that? Of course, my machines may be bigger than the
> norm...
Because nginx doesn't do tcp splicing. Is my assumption wrong; are you able to
forward 20Gbps with nginx? Then yes, probably you have huge hardware, which
isn't
necessary with haproxy.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Are you able to forward 20Gbps with nginx on a single machine?
> I doubt that.
Why would you doubt that? Of course, my machines may be bigger than the norm...
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
I use haproxy for alot of non-HTTP load balancing.
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Very simple: features.
haproxy has a huge list of features for reverse proxying that nginx
hasn't, varnish has the same for caching.
If you can do everything with nginx, go for it. But for more complex
scenarios and if you really need the highest possible performance,
you probably wanna stick to
Hi,
actually in our setup we use NGINX as SSL termination before HAProxy.
HAProxy have some features that Nginx still doesn't have. Like backend max
connections and frontend queue. So you can do throtlling to prevent your
backend
server high load and keep request from client in front. So the didn't
But I still cannot understand why, in 2013 and with the latest version of
nginx, we would still need haproxy in front of it.
You don't need it is just a thing of preference or needs / that is also why
we don't have a single webserver or database server software.
But to name few advantages (
Hi,
I made a lot of reading and comparisons.
But I still cannot understand why, in 2013 and with the latest version of
nginx, we would still need haproxy in front of it.
Nginx has it all to handle high traffic loads + very good load balancer.
Could someone help/explain what I am missing ? Even
Thank you~
As the test show, squid can make keepalive connections base on HTTP/1.0, it
is a character of squid 2.7.9.
Unfortunately, nginx can not make keepalive connections with squid 2.7.9, I
think.
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,237666,237869#msg-237869
_
21 matches
Mail list logo
