zepolen

68 ms·

751.
by zepolen 16y ago
I think the point is 'in this situation'. Of course there are places where Varnish's features are useful, just not here.
752.
by zepolen 16y ago
How is VCL more flexible?
753.
by zepolen 16y ago
Because until 0.7 nginx lacked a caching system, and so it made sense to use both. Now it doesn't.
754.
by zepolen 16y ago
Why would Varnish be required in that situation if you're already running nginx which is perfectly capable of caching a simple wordpress site in the same manner.
755.
by zepolen 16y ago
> You keep on repeating the idea that no one needs both Varnish and Nginx in their design. I never said that at any point. What I did say was your reasoning that Varnish is faster than Nginx is flawed: Apache+Varnish is 97% faster
756.
by zepolen 16y ago
Enough money to get by comfortably, not necessarily "rich".
757.
by zepolen 16y ago
I disagree. To be good in business, you need experience, which comes with time and mistakes. Hacking imho either comes naturally or it doesn't. If you can't see the appeal of an apparently pointless activity eg. code golf, then you're proba
758.
by zepolen 16y ago
> Business people can't learn technology so guess who holds the power? That's incredibly obtuse thinking. Becoming a successful entrepreneur is not as simple as 'learning business'. While some of the best entrepreneurs are hackers at he
759.
by zepolen 16y ago
I suppose you could split those 60 hours between 3 projects making it 20 hours a piece which won't be as tragic for accounting.
760.
by zepolen 16y ago
Nginx does have that capability on a much more granular level in fact. That benchmark was entirely useless for all the points I mentioned in the other post, but predominantly because you saturated your network on one of those tests, which
761.
by zepolen 16y ago
Nginx has had an apples to apples proxy_cache directive since 0.7 which does the exact same job as Varnish (albeit lacking a few features yet). Also read my other reply to your comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1593611 I sugges
762.
by zepolen 16y ago
Flaws with the benchmark: 1. Misrepresentation The title says 'Apache vs Litespeed', when in reality it is 'Varnish vs Litespeed', Apache has nothing to do with this particular benchmark. 2. Questionable results Varnish serving 217.05 req/s
763.
by zepolen 16y ago
Unfortunately there was also another one in the youtube embedding feature, took half an hour to find :)
764.
by zepolen 16y ago
Slight bug: you can pass in %31 as your nick which makes it '1' bypassing the 3char limit.
765.
by zepolen 16y ago
The actual app is pretty well xss proofed. But, unfortunately if you go to this link... http://twich.me/<script>alert(document.cookie);</script> (had to stick it in code block because HN auto marks it as spam)
766.
by zepolen 16y ago
My question is how you manage to stay in business with such flawed 'reasonings'. That benchmark in particular is so full of crap that people will become dumber after reading it.
767.
by zepolen 16y ago
What does an Apache v Litespeed benchmark have to do with anything?
768.
by zepolen 16y ago
What if I never read or even open the ToS and proceed directly to screen scraping your site? Afaik there is no law that mandates you must read/agree to the ToS before loading a website. In fact, what if the ToS states 'If you visit this sit
769.
by zepolen 16y ago
Been with them for a year now, their service is top notch.
770.
by zepolen 16y ago
The border example was a bad one, I meant what you said.
771.
by zepolen 16y ago
Shouldn't 'fuck' be a verb in this context? go/VB fuck/NN yourself/PRP
772.
by zepolen 16y ago
> I put comments so future me will remember what the heck I was thinking when I wrote it. People who don't do this: please don't underestimate the importance of this. Be descriptive as possible with the comments on possibly clever/incom
773.
by zepolen 16y ago
Fair enough, but it doesn't mean your app requires hooks since the middleware can just not use CSRF if the x-requested-with header exists.
774.
by zepolen 16y ago
Imho there is Pure and Unpure WSGI middleware, the former can be used or removed with zero change to the application, this works for things like: - profiling - caching - csrf protection This is what I think wsgi middleware should be.
775.
by zepolen 16y ago
> you still need hooks in place at your application level to be able to disable csrf checks Why would you want to disable the csrf check?
776.
by zepolen 16y ago
I think it's always been a feature of nginx: location ~ "/(.*)" { root /whatever/$1; You could even do: set $subdir $1; so that it can be used in another location handler.
777.
by zepolen 16y ago
Regarding "This logic exists in our rails app, but we didn't want to expose this pathing out to end users". I'm not sure if you understood, but I'm saying exactly this. nginx will take a /whatever request and convert it to /w/wh/wha/whateve
778.
by zepolen 16y ago
I've been doing the stuff in this article for almost a year now but instead of x-sendfile, I use nginx's proxy_cache which does the 'get from S3, save to disk, serve subsequents from disk' for you. That way deploying more photo servers for
779.
by zepolen 16y ago
I really doubt there is a website business out there getting 2 dollars per page view .
780.
by zepolen 16y ago
> and it was at my urging that the Banquet library (a common interface to all template systems) was discarded Buffet.

More ›