Ville Valkonen wrote, On 10/4/2012 1:34 PM:
On 4 October 2012 20:36, Jiri B wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:20:43PM +0300, Ville Valkonen wrote:
Hi,
I've configured Nginx and FCGI to run some C/C++ apps, well almost.
When navitaging to http://host.foo/weezel/progut/default.cgi ng
On 5 October 2012 01:56, Aaron Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Ville Valkonen wrote:
>> On 4 October 2012 20:36, Jiri B wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:20:43PM +0300, Ville Valkonen wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've co
On 5 October 2012 01:11, Rosen Iliev wrote:
> Ville Valkonen wrote, On 10/4/2012 1:34 PM:
>
>> On 4 October 2012 20:36, Jiri B wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:20:43PM +0300, Ville Valkonen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>&
made the change to unix
sockets. This is what I did:
edited rc.conf.local:
fcgi_cgi_flags="-u www -U www -c /var/www -S -s
/var/www/fcgi.socket -- /usr/local/bin/fcgi-cgi"
(in rc.d dir) $ ./fcgi_cgi restart (ok)
then changes to nginx.conf:
fastcgi_pass unix:/fcgi.socket;
and ./nginx re
2012/10/4 Ville Valkonen :
> Hi,
>
> I've configured Nginx and FCGI to run some C/C++ apps, well almost.
>
> When navitaging to http://host.foo/weezel/progut/default.cgi nginx's error log
> states the following (below there is test.c, test.c == default.cgi):
>
> 2
> Am 17.05.2024 um 03:58 schrieb F Bax :
>
> I think I missed something simple? I installed 7.5 release in a VM. I then
> installed nginx and PHP 8.3.3; with pkg_add. I then ran these two commands:
> # rcctl enable php83_fpm
> # rcctl start php83_fpm
> I found an
fails due to differing
opinions about the root of the filesystem when applied to the paths
passed from httpd to PHP-FPM. At least I have not managed to get this
to work.
But AFAIK nginx does not run chroot(2)ed by default. So PHP-FPM does
not need to either.
On OpenBSD, nginx chroots its process by
May 17, 2024 11:30:25 Souji Thenria :
> -u By default nginx will chroot(2) to the home
> directory of the user running the daemon, typically
> "www", or to the home directory of user in
> ngin
It can even help to run nginx in "unsecure mode" if you want to stay
not chrooted:
nginx_flags="-u -p /home/mytests"
man nginx
; while php-fpm.conf should remain with the default values
; in this case..
-dan
Mike Fischer wrote:
>
> > Am 17.05.2024 um 03:
Thanks for the tips and security warnings Mike, Souji and Dan,
In php-fpm.conf - I changed "; chroot = /var/www" to comment.
In /etc/rc.conf.local - I changed nginx_flags="-u -p /home/Testing"
(home directory of a real user).
reboot system and now browser is refused connection
This site can’t be re
On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 21:58 -0400, F Bax wrote:
> I think I missed something simple? I installed 7.5 release in a VM. I then
> installed nginx and PHP 8.3.3; with pkg_add. I then ran these two commands:
> # rcctl enable php83_fpm
> # rcctl start php83_fpm
> I found an issue
gs/{access|error}.log is changed.
What else needs to change?
Can you verify that nginx is running?
You may have an error in your configuration. You can check the nginx
configuration using nginx -t.
Another issue might be that nginx is still running as www and doesn't
have access to /home/Te
"Souji Thenria" wrote:
> Another issue might be that nginx is still running as www and doesn't
> have access to /home/Testing.
As per above suggestion double check that the user by which you
run nginx (usually www) has access almost by the group to
to the prefix directo
On 2024-05-17, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 21:58 -0400, F Bax wrote:
>> I think I missed something simple? I installed 7.5 release in a VM. I then
>> installed nginx and PHP 8.3.3; with pkg_add. I then ran these two commands:
>> # rcctl enable php83
I tried a few things with nginx not in chroot; but got permission errors.
The message provided no clue as to which file/directory might be causing
it; so eventually I gave up.
After some brainstorming; we decided to run inside chroot; use php
functions other than system() and use a cron job to do
On 25/05/2024 17:51, F Bax wrote:
I tried a few things with nginx not in chroot; but got permission
errors. The message provided no clue as to which file/directory might
be causing it; so eventually I gave up.
After some brainstorming; we decided to run inside chroot; use php
functions other
Hello everybody, I’m on 6.1 and trying to configure NGINX.
I’m posting this issue here because it may be peculiar to OpenBSD but I know it
could be more appropriate to post it on an NGINX specific mailing list.
Please let me know if I’m in topic.
I successfully installed NGINX (`$ doas pkg_add
Matt,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:42:54AM +0100, Matt wrote:
> I've been running Nginx with php-fastcgi and am sometimes experiencing
> the 'too many files open' error messages.
> Investigating the solution I am confused about which user (or userclass
> in logi
If nginx is running as 'www' then you're building your own nginx rather
than using the package? If so, then nginx is starting however you tell
it, and without details it's impossible to say.
It's installed through package and I use a startup as adviced in
/etc/rc.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:01:31PM +0100, Matt wrote:
>> If nginx is running as 'www' then you're building your own nginx rather
>> than using the package? If so, then nginx is starting however you tell
>> it, and without details it's impossible to say.
>&
Matt wrote:
If nginx is running as 'www' then you're building your own nginx rather
than using the package? If so, then nginx is starting however you tell
it, and without details it's impossible to say.
It's installed through package and I use a startup as
Hi!
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 07:36:23AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
>[...]
>> I'm kinda lost on which user / which (new) login.conf class I should
>> give more filedescriptors.
>> Or how to find out which particular users/deamon needs them.
>You can specify a the login class you desire when sta
Hi,
There are some confusing info about which won the base-webserver in OpenBSD:
In 5.6 it seems to be nginx 1.6.0 (http://www.openbsd.org/plus56.html) :
Unhooked httpd(8) from build: use of nginx(8) is encouraged now.
Removed Apache from base (replaced by nginx(8)).Â
and
In current (http
Hi all,
I'm finally getting round to updating my home server (gets a fresh 5.6
install).
Of course, there were a lot of changes over the past versions, one of
them being the whole apache -> nginx -> httpd migration. My webserver
has a CMS running which requires PHP and MySQL, plus a f
On three of four of my 5.4's, after applying 004_nginx.patch,
rebuilding and reinstalling nginx went fine.
On one of them it is failing with the following message:
objs/src/http/modules/ngx_http_ssl_module.o(.text+0xb36): In function
`ngx_http_ssl_merge_srv_conf':
src/ht
Folks,
If anybody's running nginx with slowcgi(8) on or before OpenBSD 5.5
release, be aware that there's a subtle error (fixed after 5.5) that
silently discards HTTP headers with some referrers.
Long story: I noticed that cookies POSTed by an iPhone client were lost
before being
erver.key 4096
openssl req -new -key /etc/ssl/private/server.key -out
/etc/ssl/private/server.csr
openssl x509 -sha512 -req -days 365 -in /etc/ssl/private/server.csr
-signkey /etc/ssl/private/server.key -out /etc/ssl/server.crt
The config:
vi /etc/nginx/nginx.conf
...
ssl_protocols TLSv
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 12:11:18PM +0200, S?bastien Marie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do some tests with a cgi program that go in infinite loop.
>
> In order to test it with nginx (-current GENERIC.MP#304), I started
> slowcgi to run the cgi program (and configured ngnix).
>
>
odd to me.
> > Does slowcgi implements some timeout ?
>
> Yes, 120 seconds. After that it considers the cgi script to be dead
> and cleans up the connection to nginx.
>
> However it does not kill the cgi script. I talked to some people when
> I implemented that and we decided
On 2014-08-02, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 12:11:18PM +0200, S?bastien Marie wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I do some tests with a cgi program that go in infinite loop.
>>
>> In order to test it with nginx (-current GENERIC.MP#304), I started
>&
Hi all .
i do
chmod 777 /var/www/1/.htpasswd
and so
nginx works with basic authentification.
but this setting is too open .
are there any idea ?
#
/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
events {
worker_connections 800;
}
http {
include mime.types;
default_type
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 05:24:14PM +0900, Tuyosi Takesima wrote:
> hi all .
> i install 5.7 using intranet (internet is unnesesary)
> i expense some time .
> for covinience i report it.
No need for such report, man 8 pxeboot is sufficient.
j.
If it's correct and not against man pages it can be helpful for beginners
to have a ready recipe, just like FAQs.
Il 07/mag/2015 10:43, "Jiri B" ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 05:24:14PM +0900, Tuyosi Takesima wrote:
> > hi all .
> > i install 5.7 using intranet (internet is unnesesary)
>
On 05/07/15 07:51, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:
> If it's correct and not against man pages it can be helpful for beginners
> to have a ready recipe, just like FAQs.
IF it is correct, maybe. But OpenBSD's philosophy has never been "more
places of docs is better!". We really want one authoritative sour
On Thu, 07 May 2015 08:13:55 -0400 Nick Holland
wrote:
> On 05/07/15 07:51, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:
> > If it's correct and not against man pages it can be helpful for beginners
> > to have a ready recipe, just like FAQs.
>
> IF it is correct, maybe. But OpenBSD's philosophy has never been "more
s OK?
C)/etc/nginx/nginx.conf
worker_processes 1;
worker_rlimit_nofile 1024;
events {
worker_connections 800;
}
http {
include mime.types;
default_type application/octet-stream;
index index.html index.htm;
keepalive_timeout 65;
server_tokens off;
Hi Carlos,
There's no analog of proxy_pass in httpd(8). relayd(8) is your friend.
On 04/13, C. L. Martinez wrote:
> I am trying to migrate nginx configuration to OpenBSD's httpd. All it is
> working ok, except for some proxy reverse config that I use with nginx's
>
. relayd(8) is your friend.
>
> On 04/13, C. L. Martinez wrote:
> > I am trying to migrate nginx configuration to OpenBSD's httpd. All it is
> > working ok, except for some proxy reverse config that I use with nginx's
> > config, like for example:
> &g
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 02:30:18PM +0300, Pavel Korovin wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> There's no analog of proxy_pass in httpd(8). relayd(8) is your friend.
So far I have not been able to emulate proxy_pass with relayd.
I came across two issues:
- relayed HTTP requests resulted in cut off responses, s
Henrik,
Regarding cut off responses, I didn't have such problems, maybe it was fixed
since 2016.
Regarding multi-site setup, I have something like this:
--- httpd.conf ---
### default site behind relayd
server "waste.tristero.se" {
alias "tristero.se"
listen on 127.0.0.1 port 80
list
Hey Pavel,
thanks for your response. I have adapted my configuration and came up
with this:
ext4="51.15.10.194"
ext6="2001:bc8:2d08::1"
table { "127.0.0.1" }
table { "127.0.0.1" }
http protocol "monit" {
match request header "Host" value "status.affekt.org" forward to
match request
On 04/16, Henrik Friedrichsen wrote:
> - Is there a way to match all hosts that are not "status.affekt.org"?
> That way I don't have to write a filter rule for every subdomain
Didn't test, just the idea:
1. You put your default host (i.e. one that will respond to all http
requests which do not
Thanks again.
This worked in case anyone is looking for it:
http protocol "monit" {
match request forward to
match request header "Host" value "status.affekt.org" forward to
}
The order is important, if put in reversed the "status.affekt.org"
forward will be overwritten.
Now all I nee
Knowing nginx is on it's way to base and having just seen some fixes
for nginx on gentoo (some CVES from 2009).
Is nginx going to complement apache in case users want features/prefer
it or replace apache as apache can no longer have time spent on it?
Also, does anyone know if there are any
> script<http://blog.kiskolabs.com/post/722322392/unicorn-init-scripts>for a
> rails+nginx+unicorn <http://sirupsen.com/setting-up-unicorn-with-nginx/>
> setup)
>
> I like how OpenBSD's init scripts reuse /etc/rc.d/rc.subr, but is this
> possible in my case?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mikkel
On 6 October 2012 05:55, Artturi Alm wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to do, is it cgi or fastcgi
> you want to use?
Sorry for not being enough clear and thanks for having crystal ball
near you, you
read my intention :)
> i managed to get cgi working with fcgi-cgi, yet i didn't
Today I wanted to test the mail reverse proxy features of nginx. For
this I've installed a fresh VM running release 5.2. To my surprise I had
to realize that nginx is compiled without the mail proxy features in the
base system.
[bruno@gateway ~]$ /usr/sbin/nginx -V
nginx version: nginx/
Hi,
Is anybody here running Ruby on Rails in the chrooted nginx(8) and know if it's
worth the hassle?
I notice the docs saying: "Some applications are pretty simple, and
chroot(2)ing them makes sense. Others are very complex, and are either not
worth the effort of forcing them into
Hi,
I'd like to setup a http reverse proxy where http://foo.org/someapp is
forwarded to 127.0.0.1:8081 and http://foo.org/* is forwarded to
somewhere else.
AFAIU, it is not possible with httpd(8) so I'm trying to do this with
relayd(8). There is an example in httpfiler protocol in
/etc/examples/r
roxy_pass http://unix:/var/www/apps/my_app/application.socket;
That seems wrong, why would you have http://unix:/...?
> Do you have any suggestions on how to implement a unix socket connection with
> NGINX chroot enabled?
You may need to use the path inside the chroot (/apps/..
ttp/ngx_http_proxy_module.html#proxy_pass
I get a syntax error `doas nginx -t` when I use `proxy_pass unix:/mypath`.
I need to either set the “https://"; or “https://"; prefix.
>> Do you have any suggestions on how to implement a unix socket connection
>> with NGINX chroot enab
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:24:24AM +, Bogdan Andu wrote:
> Hi,
> There are some confusing info about which won the base-webserver in OpenBSD:
> In 5.6 it seems to be nginx 1.6.0 (http://www.openbsd.org/plus56.html) :
> Unhooked httpd(8) from build: use of nginx(8) is encouraged no
On 2014-11-06 09.24.24 +, Bogdan Andu wrote:
> 3) what would be the performance of running Perl scripts through
> FastCGI+httpd, compared to Apache1.3/mod_perl1.3 compared to
> nginx/Nginx perl module?
You need to run these benchmarks yourself, on your scripts and data.
-Mike
[dem
server. I fully intend on
replacing nginx with it in production when 5.7 is released.
That being said, the 5.6 implementation has some issues that you may
want to research further if you'd like to use it. They've already been
fixed in -current.
) daemon?
Just my 2c about the new httpd daemon. It's brand new in 5.6, and is
shaping up to be an awesome and simple server. I fully intend on
replacing nginx with it in production when 5.7 is released.
That being said, the 5.6 implementation has some issues that you may
want to resea
o play with fcgi before
updating, nginx and lighttpd support it natively, and apache via a
module - it isn't something new, it has been around for years, it's
pretty much the only standard way to handle cgi-like scripting in a
non-forking webserver. Config methods differ, but scripts should be
other
poeple
> experienced with this httpd(8) daemon .
httpd was *very* new in 5.6, you want something newer (-current, or
keep your eye out for patches). If you want to play with fcgi before
updating, nginx and lighttpd support it natively, and apache via a
module - it isn't something new, it
AM, T. Ribbrock wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm finally getting round to updating my home server (gets a fresh 5.6
> install).
>
> Of course, there were a lot of changes over the past versions, one of
> them being the whole apache -> nginx -> httpd migration. My web
Hi Thomas,
On 29 December 2014 at 05:30, T. Ribbrock wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm finally getting round to updating my home server (gets a fresh 5.6
> install).
>
> Of course, there were a lot of changes over the past versions, one of
> them being the whole apache ->
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 14:30, T. Ribbrock wrote:
>
> b) Migrate to nginx
> This seems to be the least interesting option - not only do I have to
> migrate now, but once more in the future, as nginx is also on the way
> out (so, the same "developer attention" caveat
emga...@gmx.net (T. Ribbrock), 2015.12.29 (Mon) 14:30 (CET):
> Hi all,
>
> I'm finally getting round to updating my home server (gets a fresh 5.6
> install).
>
> Of course, there were a lot of changes over the past versions, one of
> them being the whole apache ->
I'm not experiencing any problems with httpd and php, but I don't have a
need for any of the extras you can get with the other two. It actually
seems to be performing better than nginx from what I can tell.
On 12/29/14 10:07, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 14:30, T. Ribb
ation path for existing OpenBSD users and to
ease the pain in ports.
> b) Migrate to nginx
>This seems to be the least interesting option - not only do I have to
>migrate now, but once more in the future, as nginx is also on the way
>out (so, the same "developer attention&q
forced me not to use a photogallery application I wanted to use. You
make a very valid point here: Contrary to nginx, there is indeed nobody
developing Apache 1 anymore (not even the OpenBSD developers who kept it
running for so long).
> > b) Migrate to nginx
[...]
> This might be a rea
party documentation relating to use of webapps
> with Apache has long since moved to Apache 2. It's mainly there to
> provide a quick migration path for existing OpenBSD users and to
> ease the pain in ports.
>
> > b) Migrate to nginx
> >This seems to be the lea
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:41:26PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > b) Migrate to nginx
> >This seems to be the least interesting option - not only do I have to
> >migrate now, but once more in the future, as nginx is also on the way
> >out (so, the same &quo
Hello everyone.
I'm having troubles of setting cgi/perl support for Nginx, on OpenBSD 5.3.
I get "502 Bad Gateway" on the browser when I type /cgi-bin/test.cgi -
which is a simple "Hello World" cgi file, doesn't work with my setup.
The error.log says:
[error] 29
Marko Cupa? wrote:
> On three of four of my 5.4's, after applying 004_nginx.patch,
> rebuilding and reinstalling nginx went fine.
>
> On one of them it is failing with the following message:
>
> objs/src/http/modules/ngx_http_ssl_module.o(.text+0xb36): In function
> `n
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:55:13 +0100
Remco wrote:
> Possible previously compiled left-overs in your object directory ?
> If I'm not mistaken, cleaning out /usr/obj/ will help.
rm -rf /usr/obj/* did the trick.
Thanx!
--
Marko Cupać
You could try using the cipher configuration recommended by Ivan
Ristić / ssllabs.com, as described here:
http://blog.ivanristic.com/2013/08/configuring-apache-nginx-and-openssl-for-forward-secrecy.html
Restart nginx and check what cipher is being offered.
The highest cipher supported by both
> -signkey /etc/ssl/private/server.key -out /etc/ssl/server.crt
>
> The config:
>
> vi /etc/nginx/nginx.conf
> ...
> ssl_protocols TLSv1.2;
> ssl_ciphers ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
> ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on;
> ...
>
> But Firefox says (I tran
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Joel Sing wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Ez Egy wrote:
> > Since these two are using GCM:
> >
> > www.ssllabs.com: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384
> > www.google.com: ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256
> >
> > We wanted to make our webserver HTTPS connection more secure (don't
6, yes.
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, no.
> Question: How can we set GCM in nginx? Why couldn't a fresh Firefox connect
> via HTTPS to foo.com (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384,TLSv1.2)? It can connect
> to www.ssllabs.com via HTTPS (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384,TLSv1.2)
No
Em 01-07-2014 20:06, Kristaps Dzonsons escreveu:
> Folks,
>
> If anybody's running nginx with slowcgi(8) on or before OpenBSD 5.5
> release, be aware that there's a subtle error (fixed after 5.5) that
> silently discards HTTP headers with some referrers.
>
> Lon
ssl_protocols TLSv1.2;
ssl_ciphers ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256;
was the final solution, since YES, the problem was that Firefox 30 doesn't
supports the mentioned cipher yet..
Thank you everyone! (nginx was 100% OK :) )
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Christian Weisgerber
wrote:
> On
2016-04-29 5:48 GMT+02:00 Tuyosi Takesima :
> Hi all .
>
> i do
> chmod 777 /var/www/1/.htpasswd
>
> and so
> nginx works with basic authentification.
>
> but this setting is too open .
> are there any idea ?
>
First check the file is owned by the group ngi
thanks for ludovic
# ls -l /var/www/1/
total 16
-rw-r- 1 www www 65 Apr 29 11:19 .htpasswd
# chmod 640 /var/www/1/.htpasswd
this go well .
tuyosi
On 04/29/16 21:27, Tuyosi Takesima wrote:
> thanks for ludovic
>
> # ls -l /var/www/1/
> total 16
> -rw-r- 1 www www 65 Apr 29 11:19 .htpasswd
>
> # chmod 640 /var/www/1/.htpasswd
>
> this go well .
*sigh*
Do you really want your /security/ file writable by the very user that
should
nd this stuff. It's not just
> YOUR feet you are shooting at.
>
> Nick.
>
A bit of my message might have been unclear. The file should be owned
by user root and group www.
As Nick have written, if the user and group owning a file is the same,
there is no point in ha
On 2012-03-28, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Knowing nginx is on it's way to base and having just seen some fixes
It's already in base.
> for nginx on gentoo (some CVES from 2009).
All but one of those were fixed long ago, and the other was fixed recently
(we do already have the f
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2012-03-28, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Knowing nginx is on it's way to base and having just seen some fixes
It's already in base.
Coincidentally, I just moved all of our sites/servers over to nginx in
ports just days before the integration into base was announ
Seeing the work that is done on nginx as Daily changelog shows I was
thinking the same, that eventualy nginx will replace httpd (it cannot
replace apache).
About that "too many files open", I run it this once, but Stuart
Henderson suggested to alter the values in /etc/login.conf. I was
On 2012/03/28 12:55, Kevin wrote:
> The only issue I seem to be having is a *ton* (tens of thousands) of
> random instances where the logfile repeatedly records 'too many open
> files' errors for several minutes on end.
Haven't seen this myself, I would recommend fstat to start with,
maybe ktrace
> Seeing the work that is done on nginx as Daily changelog shows I was
> thinking the same, that eventualy nginx will replace httpd (it cannot
> replace apache).
> About that "too many files open", I run it this once, but Stuart
> Henderson suggested to alter the values
>> Seeing the work that is done on nginx as Daily changelog shows I was
>> thinking the same, that eventualy nginx will replace httpd (it cannot
>> replace apache).
>> About that "too many files open", I run it this once, but Stuart
>> Henderson suggested t
> >> Seeing the work that is done on nginx as Daily changelog shows I was
> >> thinking the same, that eventualy nginx will replace httpd (it cannot
> >> replace apache).
> >> About that "too many files open", I run it this once, but Stuart
> &
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> >> Seeing the work that is done on nginx as Daily changelog shows I was
>> >> thinking the same, that eventualy nginx will replace httpd (it cannot
>> >> replace apache).
>> >> About tha
On 2012/03/28 21:30, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012/03/28 12:55, Kevin wrote:
> > The only issue I seem to be having is a *ton* (tens of thousands) of
> > random instances where the logfile repeatedly records 'too many open
> > files' errors for several minutes on end.
>
> Haven't seen this mys
On 2012/03/28 22:53, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012/03/28 21:30, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2012/03/28 12:55, Kevin wrote:
> > > The only issue I seem to be having is a *ton* (tens of thousands) of
> > > random instances where the logfile repeatedly records 'too many open
> > > files' errors
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> >> Seeing the work that is done on nginx as Daily changelog shows I was
>> >> thinking the same, that eventualy nginx will replace httpd (it cannot
>> >> replace apache).
>> >> About tha
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| > Instead, you'll crank your file limits to... let me guess, unlimited?
| >
| > And when you hit the system-wide limit, then what happens?
| >
| > Then it is our systems problem, isn't it.
| >
|
| i am not sure if you're a suggesting
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> | > Instead, you'll crank your file limits to... let me guess, unlimited?
> | >
> | > And when you hit the system-wide limit, then what happens?
> | >
> | > Then it is our syst
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:54:48AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> > | > Instead, you'll crank your file limits to... let me guess, unlimited?
> > | >
> > | > And when you hit
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:54:48AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> > | > Instead, you'll crank your file limits to... let me guess, unlimited?
> > | >
> > | > And when you hit
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:54:48AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
>> > | > Instead, you'll crank your file limits t
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Claudio Jeker
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:54:48AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
>> > | > Instead, you'll crank your file limits to.
Theo de Raadt wrote [2012-03-28 22:44+0200]:
> If software cannot cope intelligently with soft resource limits,
> then such software is probably broken.
>
> Otherwise, let's just remove the entire resource limit subsystem, ok?
I found out that i miss some kind of "physical" keyword.
The impossibi
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012, Andres Perera wrote:
>> Maybe you could also close some of those 999 keep-alive sessions and
>> pre-load sessions you have open and retry. Seriously why does a
>> webbrowser need 1024 file descriptors to be open at the same time?
>> Are you concurrently reading 500 homepages?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012, Andres Perera wrote:
>>> Maybe you could also close some of those 999 keep-alive sessions and
>>> pre-load sessions you have open and retry. Seriously why does a
>>> webbrowser need 1024 file descriptors to be open at the
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 01:31:17PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:54:48AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:24:27AM -04
101 - 200 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
