Use Nginx built in secure link module the link you provided is being
generated and served by PHP. ".com/vfm-admin/vfm-downloader.php?q="
Nginx's secure link module will resume downloads and support pseudo
streaming etc but you will find it is PHP that does not.
Change your setup and modify your
Thanks.
One more question relating to cache cleaning. If I use version 1.11.5 or
greater, and
I set manager_sleep to a small number, say 50ms, And I set
use_temp_path=off.
Now, I start receiving a large file from the upstream, let's say it will
take 10 seconds to receive it.
Will the cache_manage
Hello my friends
my problem is that i have resume ability on direct link but when change it
to secure link this ability not working, for example :
Direct link
http://www.mydomain.com/uploads/myfolder/1.rar
change to Secure link
http://www.mydomain.com/vfm-admin/vfm-downloader.php?q=dXBsb2Fkcy8xMS
Hello!
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:41:37PM -0400, shivramg94 wrote:
> Earlier, it says the pid file doesn't exist even though the master and
> worker processes were running.
>
>
> 2017/05/12 15:35:41 [notice] 19042#0: signal process started
> 2017/05/12 15:35:41 [error] 19042#0: open() "/u01/dat
Earlier, it says the pid file doesn't exist even though the master and
worker processes were running.
2017/05/12 15:35:41 [notice] 19042#0: signal process started
2017/05/12 15:35:41 [error] 19042#0: open() "/u01/data/logs/nginx.pid"
failed (2: No such file or directory)
Can the above issue ( wh
Hello!
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:37:54AM -0400, shivramg94 wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> This is what I could find in the error logs
>
> 2017/05/15 11:32:18 [notice] 21499#0: signal process started
> 2017/05/15 11:32:19 [alert] 22030#0: sendmsg() failed (88: Socket operation
> on non-socket)
> 2017/0
Hello!
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:16:38AM +0200, Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm running nginx from git HEAD, when I add the following two lines to a
> https server:
>
> ssl_client_certificate /tmp/ca.crt;
> ssl_verify_client on;
>
> and connect to the website, I get:
>
> 2017/05/15 08:
At times, the error logs say
2017/05/15 11:37:01 [notice] 9#0: signal process started
2017/05/15 11:37:02 [alert] 22030#0: sendmsg() failed (32: Broken pipe)
2017/05/15 11:37:02 [alert] 22030#0: sendmsg() failed (32: Broken pipe)
2017/05/15 11:37:04 [alert] 22030#0: sendmsg() failed (9: Bad fi
Hi Maxim,
This is what I could find in the error logs
2017/05/15 11:32:18 [notice] 21499#0: signal process started
2017/05/15 11:32:19 [alert] 22030#0: sendmsg() failed (88: Socket operation
on non-socket)
2017/05/15 11:32:19 [alert] 22030#0: sendmsg() failed (32: Broken pipe)
2017/05/15 11:32:19
I read through the source codes and find the limit should be applied to each
worker process. Right ?
static void
ngx_worker_process_init(ngx_cycle_t *cycle, ngx_int_t worker)
{
// .
if (ccf->rlimit_nofile != NGX_CONF_UNSET) {
rlmt.rlim_cur = (rlim_t) ccf->rlimit_nofile;
Hello!
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 06:54:47AM -0400, shivramg94 wrote:
> I am facing an issue where once I issued a reload to the NGinX binary, few
> of the older worker processes are not dying. They still remain orphaned.
>
> This is the configuration before issuing a reload :
>
> [poduser@ucfc2z
Hello!
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:02:18AM -0400, Michael Corn wrote:
> The documentation for proxy_cache_path states:
>The data is removed in iterations configured by manager_files,
> manager_threshold, and manager_sleep parameters (1.11.5).
>
> I was wondering what the behavior of t
Hello
I'm confused if the worker_rlimit_nofile directive is for total of all
worker processes or single worker process? As I know, the worker_connections
is for single worker process. Let's say if I have two worker processes and
have worker_connections 512, then should I set worker_rlimit_nofile t
Hello!
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:02:13PM +0800, Muhui Jiang wrote:
> Thanks for your great answer. you mentioned that sendfile() is to copy
> between kernel space and userland. I am curious, why this whole process
> don't need to malloc any memory? Could you please explain more on the
> detail i
Hi,
The documentation for proxy_cache_path states:
The data is removed in iterations configured by manager_files,
manager_threshold, and manager_sleep parameters (1.11.5).
I was wondering what the behavior of the cache manager was prior to release
1.11.5 (specifically, in version 1.10
nice. it's clear. thanks.
Posted at Nginx Forum:
https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,274098,274214#msg-274214
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
I am facing an issue where once I issued a reload to the NGinX binary, few
of the older worker processes are not dying. They still remain orphaned.
This is the configuration before issuing a reload :
[poduser@ucfc2z3a-1582-lb8-nginx1 logs]$ ps -ef | grep nginx
poduser 12540 22030 0 06:39 ?
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 18:26:39 +0300
> From: "Reinis Rozitis"
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:Reverse-proxying: Flask app with Bokeh server on Nginx
> Message-ID: <437D05EFD1A24D9292CCE7BE45B2127C@Neiroze>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
> reply-type=
18 matches
Mail list logo
