5 ms·

I believe Rtm has already set one up.

• wheels 15y ago
  The conspicuous lack of a "Server:" header inclines me to believe that that's probably not the case (most web servers set one indicating the server software and version). Here are the headers that HN sends out from an old post (20 days ago): HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Cache-Control: private Connection: close Cache-Control: max-age=0
  • bascule 15y ago
    My favorite part of HN's headers: the lines are separated by naked LFs instead of CRLF, in violation of the HTTP spec
    • divtxt 15y ago
      This is common violation that everyone accepts. It's definitely done by 'bad' clients - not sure how often servers send bare LF. (I used to telnet to port 80 for testing, and type GET / HTTP/1.0 <enter> <enter>, and that should be LF on Linux & Mac)
      • marshray 15y ago
        You don't know that everyone accepts it. Even if they did, it doesn't make it right.
        • pufuwozu 15y ago
          I fixed submitted a patch for this in the pecl_http PHP library: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=58442 https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=58442
      • bascule 15y ago
        You don't have a problem with one of the most trafficked sites for programming/web startup-related news implementing HTTP incorrectly? Do you ignore whether your HTML is valid just because the browser rendered it correctly?
        • snprbob86 15y ago
          Yup. I've got real work to do. Making a validator happy is fake work.
          • bascule 15y ago
            Some of us actually care about interoperability, maintainability and writing good code in general as opposed to just cowboying stuff together as quickly as possible
            • Animus7 15y ago
              I used to preach the same thing. Then, working at a startup taught me that it's not black and white. Several quotes come to mind, but Voltaire's is my favorite: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
              • bascule 15y ago
                Having worked at startups with both cowboys with a "get 'er done" attitude and people who actually care about software craftsmanship, I'll take the latter any day. Cowboys may get things "done" quickly, but that doesn't help when things are subtly broken, have interoperability problems, or are nearly impossible to extend without breaking.
          • pilif 15y ago
            By ensuring that your pages are valid, you make it ever so much more likely that you will not have to scramble around wasting time at a most inopportune time when the new version of a browser comes out which handles your non-standards compliant tag soup differently than the current version of the browser. So, do you want to pay the price upfront when you can plan for it or afterwards when the fix must be done immediately because customers are complaining?
• slyall 15y ago
  We use varnish for caching and check the useragent for requests. If the cache has a copy of an article that is a few hours old it will just give that version to Googlebot while if it thinks a human is requesting the page then it will go to the backend and fetch the latest version. https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/2011-March/005731.html https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/2...
  • moe 15y ago
    +1 for varnish. It's stupidly[1] fast and there shouldn't be much trickery required to deflect most of HN's traffic (e.g. ~10 sec expiry for "live" pages, infinite expiry for archived pages). [1] 15k reqs/sec on a moderate box