up_the_irons is on the case
Ooh, now graphs fails with no route to host
cool
maybe he rebooted it?
it works for me now at least
although it seems it broke a few days ago
Yep, back up and working for me too.
do you find a gap since like thursday?
sweet
yeah
Yep, late Thurs.
I see missgin data
heh i wasn't sure when on thursday it was
but yeah that makse sense, the red line is the end of thursday
Free bandwidth!
haha
i'm under monthly cap in a year anyway :/
do azure cloud servers come with public IPs or are they Natted like AWS ?
Azure doesn't even let ICMP through afaict
but I don't remember them having NAT
didn't azure have osme fre etrial or something at some point
To sign up for a Free Trial you need a phone number, a credit card, and a Microsoft Account username (formerly Windows Live ID).
We use the phone number and credit card for identity verification. We want to make sure that real people are using Azure. We do not bill anything on the credit card.
wow they have a lot of lcoations
Yeah, but MSFT had [most of] those DC's already. AWS was essentially building out new
*shrug*
azure is in new zealand, aws isn't.
and isn't aws in like 12 locations if that
Sydney is close enough :P
and azure seems to be in like 140+
static: it's a difference of 6x ping for me :/
and more for some people heh
it's actually good to have sservers within 20 msec really :/
Sydney congestion is more common than US congestion here it seems too.
oh actually azure doesn't have new zealand
the list it in the 140 locations or whatever, but there's only like 12 again that you can host vm's in
how different is nginx compared to apache?
The configuration is still text-based...
Many similar concepts
But it's definitely its own program
how about lighttpd
are those two similar?
nginx and lighttpd I mean
Yeah I'd say nginx and lighttpd are more similar than either to Apache.
By no means are the configuration files compatible though, if that's what you're getting at
zeshoem: lighttpd is much simpler than nginx ime
I suppose I mean more feature compliant, run ssl and php etc
but nginx has more cool features, is under more active development, and seems to be getting more popular.
nginx ftw :)
something similar to .htaccess files so users can modify config
i'm slowly shifting some stuff form lighttpd to nginx.
zeshoem: that's an apacheism
for shared hosting most people are still doing apache
it actually seems to the most desired feature pushing poeple to apache though
That and suexec
you can run php under different users brycec
The only two reasons I'd still run Apache. And the htaccess-isms are easily translated into server-side config.
mercutio: Yeah but it's a bitch of a setup
do most folks hand write their apache configs?
virtualhosts and all
zeshoem: i wrote a script to do some apache config stuff once
but i still usually just hand roll.
^
I used to hand roll a long time ago, before I was introduced to cPanel
*cough*
now I seem to have lost that ability
/part
it's not very complicated zeshoem
in the big scheme of things
but if you struggle with that you may struggle with nginx and php
as long as I can yum install nginx and something like php-nginx I should be OK
maaaybe, if the packagers included a config for you
but if it needs compiling I probably cant handle that
That's what she said!!
BryceBot: twss
Okay! twss! 'but if it needs compiling I probably cant handle that'
maybe you should just stick with cpanel
it doens't need compiling, but it needs config
It would be awesome if something feature comparable to cPanel was release as Free Software.
the cPanel tax hurts
it's only $10/month or something isn't it
Well, I hate to say it, but there is Webmin...
oh it's $20/month
its different on virtual servers and physical but its there
well thre's lots of howto's around about configuring nginx/php
http://askubuntu.com/questions/134666/what-is-the-easiest-way-to-enable-php-on-nginx
is there a noticable performance boost while using nginx compared to apache?
on low ram hosts sure
on high load sure
but if you have plenty of ram/cpu/etc with light load you probably won't notice the difference
For most, nginx outperforms Apache in many facets.
It's very nice to have a minimal footprint. Apache is a hog.
there are lots of convoluted things that all work intogether zeshoem
like lots of php stuff leaks.
so running less processes can mean you're less likely to deplete all of your ram.
apache has more than one version, in the in-process model it runs php as a module, and each apache instance uses a lot of ram.
which goes up over time normally, as it doesn't seem to free it between requests.
(And so one approach of Apache's is to reap and respawn those child processes)
so most people that still use apache with medium to high load sites run php as a cgi with apache
oh yeah the easy workarouhnd is to limit the number of requests served by a process.
but doing such things reduces further static performnace
Oh man, sendfile performance for static assets, mind-blowing
zeshoem: also tuning mysql can make a difference to php site performance normally.
as well as using caching plugins etc.
(Not a very noticeable gain for small/slow sites, but larger sites and scripts/apps that make good use of it, it's awesome)
brycec: caching helps small sites.
mercutio: Sorry, I was referring to sendfile
o right
setting expires etc elps too
why is my h key being mental
Yeah there's lots of optimization that can be eked out
if you know what you're doing
If you're afraid of compiling, then you probably aren't the type to opimize the dickens out of things
but yeah that stuff can make more noticable difference to speed than apache vs nginx
some people are just lazy, and just enable cloudflare in front of their sites.
I have a site where a php script receives a request and serves back a file from the disk. It sees some pretty heavy use. Using sendfile in that reduced my system load to practically nothing
brycec: that's a special case :)
I dare say that's exactly sendfile's intended use :p
(serving file downloads)
oh i thought you meant the sendfile system call
X-Sendfile technically
yeah, that's different :)
slightly ;p
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/sendfile.2.html
well it means php isn't in a send/recv loop
and php bieng intrepreted and high memory usage means it's good to avoid
Yep, and the server can recycle/cache as it wants
lighttpd supports that too
lightty really is simpler :/
http://wiki.nginx.org/XSendfile
Yep
I find nginx simpler, personally
interesting
on ubuntu lighttpd php just works
nginx lets me do relatively complex things very simply.
well  that's not what i was thinking when i wqas talking about simple :)
I can't read your mind :P
heh
i meant simple as in basic
Anyhow, yes, everyone has different definitions of "simple"
(and "similar")
yeah
it's all about scope
if you just want to install cacti or something on a host, and have a web interface, lighttpd is quick/easy
but if you want to do complex sites nginx may help
and nginx supports spdy :)
(And Apache is easier, because the cacti package just drops in a config for it :P)
same with lightty
Enabling spdy was super, super easy
Not that I'll see a benefit from it in my uses... but hey, geek cred, or something
heh
new ubuntu supports tcp fast open in nginx
we probably overloaded zeshoem
stepped away for a few minutes. Back now
heh
spun up a centos6 and centos7 vm
was trying to figure out why pings are getting duplicated
turns out a virtual GNS3 router was interfering
yeah, graphs.arp was borked for a while
up_the_irons: what happened to it?
we were getting apache poked itself
mercutio: not sure, i finally had to just hard reboot it
weird.
-bash: telnet: command not found
apt-get install telnet ?
centos 7, I was just surprised its not installed by default. yum install telnet worked
ubuntu doesn't install it by default either iirc
slackware is the only distro that used to isntall lots of stuff by default?
i dunno it's current status as i havent' used it since libc5 days.