On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:49:20AM -0400, libresco_27 wrote:
Hi there,
> But I'm not explicitly defining the value for proxy_busy_buffers_size to
> something. Right now it is set with the default value
Oh, sorry. I had misunderstood what you were reporting.
I now think that the confusion comes
But I'm not explicitly defining the value for proxy_busy_buffers_size to
something. Right now it is set with the default value
Posted at Nginx Forum:
https://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,294892,294904#msg-294904
___
nginx mailing list -- nginx@nginx.org
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:01:32AM -0400, libresco_27 wrote:
Hi there,
> What is the relationship between these three directives -
> proxy_busy_buffers_size, proxy_buffers and proxy_buffer_size?
http://nginx.org/r/proxy_buffer_size, plus some of the following sections.
> Currently, I'm only usi
Hi,
What is the relationship between these three directives -
proxy_busy_buffers_size, proxy_buffers and proxy_buffer_size?
Currently, I'm only using proxy_buffer_size in my location block but
whenever I set it to some higher number, for ex: 32k, it throws the
following error -
nginx: [emerg] "pro
Hello!
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:58:49AM -0500, thehunmonkgroup wrote:
> I could deal with *some* inaccuracy, but the results are completely out of
> whack. Downloading 256KB of data via the websocket over a poor DSL
> connection happens near instantaneously from the websocket server's point of
I could deal with *some* inaccuracy, but the results are completely out of
whack. Downloading 256KB of data via the websocket over a poor DSL
connection happens near instantaneously from the websocket server's point of
view, which to me indicates that Nginx is consuming all that data in a
buffer in
Hello!
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 02:45:56PM -0800, Chad Phillips wrote:
> I use software that runs a speed test via websockets. When proxying this
> websocket connection through Nginx, the 'download' portion of the test is
> inaccurate.
>
> My theory is that this is due to Nginx buffering the resp
I use software that runs a speed test via websockets. When proxying this
websocket connection through Nginx, the 'download' portion of the test is
inaccurate.
My theory is that this is due to Nginx buffering the response from the
backend server, thus the timer on the backend server reports an inac
Hello!
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:51:33PM -0400, rnmx18 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are trying to use NGINX for caching service in low bandwidth, high
> latency mobile networks. The service is to stream 10-sec video segments of
> different types ranging from 2MB to 50MB.
>
> NGINX proxy_buffering confi
Hi,
We are trying to use NGINX for caching service in low bandwidth, high
latency mobile networks. The service is to stream 10-sec video segments of
different types ranging from 2MB to 50MB.
NGINX proxy_buffering configuration is as follows:
proxy_buffering on;
proxy_buffer_size
Hello again,
Any thoughts about the proxy no_buffer feature?
Proxy buffering (for uploads) is an actual problem for many nginx proxy setups,
because uploads are saved to nginx local disk first while processing,
which makes the uploads slow, and in the case of big upload filesizes
also there
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 08:07:51AM +0400, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:45:18AM -0400, JSurf wrote:
>
> > > I'll plan to work on this and related problems at the start of
> > > next year.
> > >
> >
> > Hi, is this still somewhere on the priority list ?
>
> Yes, it
Maxim Dounin Wrote:
---
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:45:18AM -0400, JSurf wrote:
>
> > > I'll plan to work on this and related problems at the start of
> > > next year.
> > >
> >
> > Hi, is this still somewhere on the priority list ?
Great news! Thanks!
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,244680,249983#msg-249983
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Hello!
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:45:18AM -0400, JSurf wrote:
> > I'll plan to work on this and related problems at the start of
> > next year.
> >
>
> Hi, is this still somewhere on the priority list ?
Yes, it's still in the list.
--
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.org/
_
> I'll plan to work on this and related problems at the start of
> next year.
>
Hi, is this still somewhere on the priority list ?
The upload_buffer patch attached to this thread does not apply to 1.6.x
without changes
It would be a great addition to this cool server.
When dealing with big file
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 07:21:13PM +0400, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
>
Hi,
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:45:37PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:34:37AM -0500, Downchuck wrote:
> > > Is there a large technical barrier to implementing this feature? Patches
> > > h
Hello!
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:45:37PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:34:37AM -0500, Downchuck wrote:
> > Is there a large technical barrier to implementing this feature? Patches
> > have been available for some time at: http://yaoweibin.cn/patches/
> >
>
> Hi,
>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:34:37AM -0500, Downchuck wrote:
> Is there a large technical barrier to implementing this feature? Patches
> have been available for some time at: http://yaoweibin.cn/patches/
>
Hi,
Based on my testing the no_buffer v8 patch works OK with nginx 1.4.x!
http://yaoweibin.
Is there a large technical barrier to implementing this feature? Patches
have been available for some time at: http://yaoweibin.cn/patches/
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,244680,245610#msg-245610
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@n
Hello!
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:37:03PM -0600, Andrew Tynefield wrote:
> I've configured nginx as a load balancing proxy for my backend servers. My
> backend is expecting multi-part uploads for large files in small chunks
> (5-15mb). The issue I'm encountering, is that I would like for nginx to
Hello all,
I've configured nginx as a load balancing proxy for my backend servers. My
backend is expecting multi-part uploads for large files in small chunks
(5-15mb). The issue I'm encountering, is that I would like for nginx to
just pass the chunked data along to the backend servers and not buff
Hello!
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 11:40:27AM -0400, bkosborne wrote:
> Why not just turn off buffering completely?
There are at least three reasons:
1) Turning off buffering will result in more CPU usage (and worse
network utilization in some cases).
2) It doesn't work with limit_rate (not even
Why not just turn off buffering completely?
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,242495,242528#msg-242528
___
nginx mailing list
nginx@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx
Hmm okay, so that would essentially buffer as much as it can in RAM (which
really wouldn't be much based on the default buffer sizes). Once that in
memory buffer becomes full, then what happens? It starts sending the data to
the client thats in the buffer as well any anything that isn't?
Posted at
Hello!
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:45:12AM -0400, bkosborne wrote:
> Hmm okay, so that would essentially buffer as much as it can in RAM (which
> really wouldn't be much based on the default buffer sizes). Once that in
> memory buffer becomes full, then what happens? It starts sending the data to
Hello!
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 07:12:22AM +0300, wishmaster wrote:
[...]
> > > What is a common use case for using proxy_buffering? Since it's a default
> > > option, I assume it's commonly used and for good reason. I'm just having a
> > > hard time applying the thought process to my specific se
quested is around 2.5 megabytes. There are files
> > larger than that, but they are requested in byte-ranges from our CDN.
> >
> > I'm wondering how I should configure proxy buffering here. I noticed that
> > the default is set to on:
> > http://nginx.org/en/docs/h
stored on each.
The largest media file requested is around 2.5 megabytes. There are files
larger than that, but they are requested in byte-ranges from our CDN.
I'm wondering how I should configure proxy buffering here. I noticed that
the default is set to on:
http://nginx.o
tream servers. Each
> upstream server is just a simple nginx server with identical media files
> stored on each.
>
> The largest media file requested is around 2.5 megabytes. There are files
> larger than that, but they are requested in byte-ranges from our CDN.
>
> I'm wonderin
One thing I thought of is that proxy_buffering is ideal if you have slow
clients - where downloading the media files could take a long time. In this
case, the goal would be to free up upstream workers. However, since my
upstream is NOT an application server, and just nginx, is that really
necessary
31 matches
Mail list logo