Maybe that "proxy_buffering on" badly interacts with websockets?
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:42 PM, javdev wrote:
> Hello guys this is my first question here.
>
> I'm working on nginx almost 2 years, but in the laste days I have founded an
> error, very complicated to solve.
>
> I'm working on Amaz
Piotr just installed ngx_brotli on my Nginx stack and works nicely in
Firefox 44 nightly tests. However, it might have broken ngx_pagespeed
support for me in Firefox 44 nightly
https://github.com/pagespeed/ngx_pagespeed/issues/1021.
ngx_pagspeed works fine for https on my site with Chrome, Opera
thanks Piotr for the clarification
definitely going to give ngx_brotli a spin :D
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,262088,262189#msg-262189
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Hi.
Am 13-10-2015 22:11, schrieb steve:
On 10/14/2015 09:03 AM, nanaya wrote:
[snipp]
You said
As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad
thing(tm)
to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently
some
but the google article clearly says otherwise (unl
Hi.
Am 13-10-2015 21:39, schrieb steve:
Thanks for all the replies - I've not been ignoring you, I'm just in a
different timezone!
On 10/14/2015 03:16 AM, Patrick Nommensen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Andrew Hutchings
wrote:
Hi!
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 08:59:02 steve wrote:
Oh and this part
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 05:11 AM, steve wrote:
>
>
> ( this is also *not* a google sanctioned document - it's on blogspot )
>
And if you didn't know, blogspot is owned by google and that blog is
google's. In fact, if you search for anything in here
https://support.google.com/
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 05:11 AM, steve wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you re-read the article... whilst it does include the Chuck
> Norris quote, it also states 'While it’s not totally optimal behavior,
> it’s perfectly legitimate and a-okay. :)'.
>
The following point specifically mentions that
On 10/14/2015 09:03 AM, nanaya wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 04:58 AM, steve wrote:
As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad thing(tm)
to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently some
.htaccess tweak can do a 301 redirect from one to the other, but
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 04:58 AM, steve wrote:
> >> As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad thing(tm)
> >> to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently some
> >> .htaccess tweak can do a 301 redirect from one to the other, but
> >> absolutely nothing th
On 10/14/2015 08:47 AM, nanaya wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 04:39 AM, steve wrote:
As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad thing(tm)
to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently some
.htaccess tweak can do a 301 redirect from one to the other, but
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015, at 04:39 AM, steve wrote:
> As can be seen from the google article, it's apparently a bad thing(tm)
> to duplicate content for example.com/ and example.com. Apparently some
> .htaccess tweak can do a 301 redirect from one to the other, but
> absolutely nothing that has be
Thanks for all the replies - I've not been ignoring you, I'm just in a
different timezone!
On 10/14/2015 03:16 AM, Patrick Nommensen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Andrew Hutchings
mailto:ahutchi...@nginx.com>> wrote:
Hi!
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 08:59:02 steve wrote:
Hi
Thank you very much. Valentin
Best Regards
Muhui Jiang
2015-10-13 23:16 GMT+08:00 Valentin V. Bartenev :
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 22:43:48 Muhui Jiang wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Thank you so much. Valentin.
> > My understanding:
> > Though clinklittle128.png has higher priority, the server wa
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 22:43:48 Muhui Jiang wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thank you so much. Valentin.
> My understanding:
> Though clinklittle128.png has higher priority, the server wants to send it
> first to the client. But because of flow control, the clinklittle128.png is
> blocked(waiting for the wind
Hi
Thank you so much. Valentin.
My understanding:
Though clinklittle128.png has higher priority, the server wants to send it
first to the client. But because of flow control, the clinklittle128.png is
blocked(waiting for the window update frame). But at this time the server
don't want to waste the
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Andrew Hutchings
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 08:59:02 steve wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I have a requirement from a customer that the terminal slash be
> > rewritten when accessing the homepage - eg example.com/ is a 301 to
> > example.com
> >
> >
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 16:05:16 Muhui Jiang wrote:
> Hi
>
> move the debug to the main level; And the error.log below: a little bit long.
> Thanks
>
[..]
> 2015/10/13 15:55:58 [debug] 904#0: *20 http2:1 DATA frame 7F9422806728
> was sent
> 2015/10/13 15:55:58 [debug] 904#0: *20 http2 fr
On 13.10.2015 1:14, steve wrote:
It's not me that wants this idiocy... it's the Snake Oil salesmen!
I'm apparently trying to do something that apache can, but so far,
nothing has worked - everything just ends in a loop.
info from Google:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.fr/2010/04/to-s
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015, at 04:59 AM, steve wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have a requirement from a customer that the terminal slash be
> rewritten when accessing the homepage - eg example.com/ is a 301 to
> example.com
>
> I've tried a simple rewrite of ^/$ but that just loops.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
Hi!
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 08:59:02 steve wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have a requirement from a customer that the terminal slash be
> rewritten when accessing the homepage - eg example.com/ is a 301 to
> example.com
>
> I've tried a simple rewrite of ^/$ but that just loops.
>
> Any ideas?
As
Lukas Tribus Wrote:
---
> which a) you are not doing and b) is not possible, as its the same
> exact HTTP
> request.
Not exactly the same but handled correctly (400) when forcing the
impossible;
[13/Oct/2015:14:51:49 +0200] 192.xxx 6807 - - "GET
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:00:56AM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote:
> Am 13-10-2015 00:14, schrieb steve:
Hi there,
> >It's not me that wants this idiocy... it's the Snake Oil salesmen!
> >
> >I'm apparently trying to do something that apache can, but so far,
> >nothing has worked - everything just
> You can, see my map example, used here to redirect http to https except root
> (/).
Thats not what this thread is about.
> site.com => tell user we've gone to ssl in plain http
> site.com/ => tell user we've gone to ssl in plain http
The original poster needs to differentiate between "site.c
Lukas Tribus Wrote:
---
> But *not* with "/".
You can, see my map example, used here to redirect http to https except root
(/).
site.com => tell user we've gone to ssl in plain http
site.com/ => tell user we've gone to ssl in plain http
site.com/
> I'm apparently trying to do something that apache can, but so far,
> nothing has worked - everything just ends in a loop.
No, you cannot do this, see [1]:
> If the target URI's path component is empty, the client MUST
> send "/" as the path within the origin-form of request-target.
An empty re
Hi,
Am 13-10-2015 00:14, schrieb steve:
[snipp]
It's not me that wants this idiocy... it's the Snake Oil salesmen!
I'm apparently trying to do something that apache can, but so far,
nothing has worked - everything just ends in a loop.
Please can you post the settings how hit works in apache
26 matches
Mail list logo
