Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


buy shared Downtime - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

buy shared Downtime

2

Comments

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    It's not Nginx but Nginx in front of Apache as a reverse proxy (extra point of failure), which you claim solves the problem of Apache reloading config file for X amount of time while not serving requests on large deployments.

    I don't see how this could work.

  • JorboxJorbox Member

    @Clouvider said:
    It's not Nginx but Nginx in front of Apache as a reverse proxy (extra point of failure), which you claim solves the problem of Apache reloading config file for X amount of time while not serving requests on large deployments.

    I don't see how this could work.

    I invite you to try it , but read this first https://github.com/engintron/engintron/blob/master/README.md

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @Jorbox said:

    @Clouvider said:
    It's not Nginx but Nginx in front of Apache as a reverse proxy (extra point of failure), which you claim solves the problem of Apache reloading config file for X amount of time while not serving requests on large deployments.

    I don't see how this could work.

    I invite you to try it , but read this first https://github.com/engintron/engintron/blob/master/README.md

    I don't have as large setup as @Francisco for Shared Hosting, in fact we don't even advertise it.

    I went through the docs and I see nothing that could help with the case @Francisco mentioned.

    Great, you like Nginx with some 3rd party unsupported plugin, if you think it helps you, that's even better. Let's agree to disagree here.

  • JorboxJorbox Member

    @Clouvider said:

    @Jorbox said:

    @Clouvider said:
    It's not Nginx but Nginx in front of Apache as a reverse proxy (extra point of failure), which you claim solves the problem of Apache reloading config file for X amount of time while not serving requests on large deployments.

    I don't see how this could work.

    I invite you to try it , but read this first https://github.com/engintron/engintron/blob/master/README.md

    I don't have as large setup as @Francisco for Shared Hosting, in fact we don't even advertise it.

    I went through the docs and I see nothing that could help with the case @Francisco mentioned.

    Great, you like Nginx with some 3rd party unsupported plugin, if you think it helps you, that's even better. Let's agree to disagree here.

    Since its free and can be uninstalled with one click, why not giving it a try and save some time and money !

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited July 2017

    @Jorbox said:

    @Clouvider said:

    @Jorbox said:

    @Clouvider said:
    It's not Nginx but Nginx in front of Apache as a reverse proxy (extra point of failure), which you claim solves the problem of Apache reloading config file for X amount of time while not serving requests on large deployments.

    I don't see how this could work.

    I invite you to try it , but read this first https://github.com/engintron/engintron/blob/master/README.md

    I don't have as large setup as @Francisco for Shared Hosting, in fact we don't even advertise it.

    I went through the docs and I see nothing that could help with the case @Francisco mentioned.

    Great, you like Nginx with some 3rd party unsupported plugin, if you think it helps you, that's even better. Let's agree to disagree here.

    Since its free and can be uninstalled with one click, why not giving it a try and save some time and money !

    ???

    For starters, because my Customers look for quality and not hacked solutions with 3rd party unsupported plugins to cut corners to save very low $xx per month per server

    Thanked by 1S3phy
  • LunarLunar Member

    Just want to add my 2 cents. Engintron is great and we recommend it to a lot of our customers at the DC I work at. Just because it's "unsupported" doesn't mean much. If you have a problem you can disable it in 1 click and make a bug report on GitHub. It's essentially the same kind of thing you'd have to do with any paid plugin/webserver anyways. And to assume something paid comes with less problems is silly. cPanel/WHM & Lightspeed have had their fair share of problems as well. You can also modify nearly every aspect of how Engintron functions, as the configs are all editable through the plugin's interface in WHM.

  • k0nslk0nsl Member

    Hm, just as @Clouvider already hinted, the ‘solution’ offered by @Jorbox will likely worsen the situation. I don't think @Jorbox understands the scenario, or...?

    Thanked by 2Clouvider Junkless
  • JorboxJorbox Member

    @k0nsl said:
    Hm, just as @Clouvider already hinted, the ‘solution’ offered by @Jorbox will likely worsen the situation. I don't think @Jorbox understands the scenario, or...?

    Try it first then you will know if its better than the old man (full of errors) "litespeed" or not :)

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited July 2017

    @Jorbox said:

    @k0nsl said:
    Hm, just as @Clouvider already hinted, the ‘solution’ offered by @Jorbox will likely worsen the situation. I don't think @Jorbox understands the scenario, or...?

    Try it first then you will know if its better than the old man (full of errors) "litespeed" or not :)

    What are the reasonable grounds for one to try it in this scenario ?

    I mean if I break my leg I can go to an optician, it might even be free if I go via NHS, not that he or she will help me with my broken leg.

  • BecomeWebHostBecomeWebHost Member
    edited July 2017

    Francisco said: It's kinda like a captcha when you try to hit wp-login.php on our servers, it looks like https://dev.cpanelplatform.com/wp-login.php

    I think it's for general wordpress bots. It's setting some cookie. I bet someone know how to write a simple bot can crack that thing also. I mean if someone wants to attack that particular domain specifically.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @pixahex said:

    Francisco said: It's kinda like a captcha when you try to hit wp-login.php on our servers, it looks like https://dev.cpanelplatform.com/wp-login.php

    I think it's for general wordpress bots. It's setting some cookie. I bet someone know how to write a simple bot can crack that thing also. I mean if someone wants to attack that particular domain specifically.

    I have no doubt, but that doesn't mean someone is going to waste the energy on it for bruting us.

    We tried Engintron and it was OK but had a lot of problems.

    Francisco

  • williewillie Member

    Might be worth putting in an enhancement request about config loading to the Apache bug tracker.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @willie said:
    Might be worth putting in an enhancement request about config loading to the Apache bug tracker.

    Maybe? We don't use apache on any of the servers so it's not a huge rush on my end :P

    Francisco

  • k0nslk0nsl Member

    I have already tried a similar solution called nginxcp (or simply Nginx Admin) and every time the configuration changed or one added a new vhost it would take a rather long time for the webserver to restart since the configuration had to be rebuilt again. I suspect that the solution/software which you want us to test is using a similar mechanism -- in which case it would make it worse (in terms of the scenario told by Fran) than simply just using LSWS on its own.

    @Jorbox said:

    @k0nsl said:
    Hm, just as @Clouvider already hinted, the ‘solution’ offered by @Jorbox will likely worsen the situation. I don't think @Jorbox understands the scenario, or...?

    Try it first then you will know if its better than the old man (full of errors) "litespeed" or not :)

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    k0nsl said: Try it first then you will know if its better than the old man (full of errors) "litespeed" or not :)

    Litespeed has its problems but they've fixed the ones I've been complaining about and things have been stable with it.

    Engintron is also stable, but i had a lot of issues with Cloudflare, user IP's, and just Apache still sometimes going a bit mental with PHP. It had issues where it didn't detect new SSL's or domains which led to it taking a long time to apply them. We ran it on 2 - 3 nodes in hopes of it being a good alternative since Litespeed kept crashing for us, but it wasn't.

    Litespeeds PHP is nice, and to be honest you can recompile cPanel's Apache with LSPHP, but I don't have the time/energy to screw around to see if that works.

    Francisco

  • ExonHostExonHost Member, Host Rep

    All of the nginx cPanel plugins have the same issue. Engintron fixed SSL issue in the latest version.

    Those plugins create more issue, so we removed and Happy using LiteSpeed now.

    @Francisco said:

    k0nsl said: Try it first then you will know if its better than the old man (full of errors) "litespeed" or not :)

    Litespeed has its problems but they've fixed the ones I've been complaining about and things have been stable with it.

    Engintron is also stable, but i had a lot of issues with Cloudflare, user IP's, and just Apache still sometimes going a bit mental with PHP. It had issues where it didn't detect new SSL's or domains which led to it taking a long time to apply them. We ran it on 2 - 3 nodes in hopes of it being a good alternative since Litespeed kept crashing for us, but it wasn't.

    Litespeeds PHP is nice, and to be honest you can recompile cPanel's Apache with LSPHP, but I don't have the time/energy to screw around to see if that works.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 2Francisco Clouvider
  • Francisco said: Litespeed forks a new parent process that loads the new configuration while the old process handles requests. Once it's done loading, the old master process falls off. It's all seamless now that they addressed the graceful restart fixes.

    Thanks for the clarification. Though I wonder if OpenLiteSpeed uses the term "graceful restart" in the exact same way. Should try it on one of my servers to see.

  • @Francisco said:

    @pixahex said:

    Francisco said: It's kinda like a captcha when you try to hit wp-login.php on our servers, it looks like https://dev.cpanelplatform.com/wp-login.php

    I think it's for general wordpress bots. It's setting some cookie. I bet someone know how to write a simple bot can crack that thing also. I mean if someone wants to attack that particular domain specifically.

    I have no doubt, but that doesn't mean someone is going to waste the energy on it for bruting us.

    We tried Engintron and it was OK but had a lot of problems.

    Francisco

    would using something also help with brute forcing https://smyl.es/how-to-block-wp-login-php-brute-logins-with-cpanel-mod-security-and-configserver-firewall/

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @dragonballz2k said:

    @Francisco said:

    @pixahex said:

    Francisco said: It's kinda like a captcha when you try to hit wp-login.php on our servers, it looks like https://dev.cpanelplatform.com/wp-login.php

    I think it's for general wordpress bots. It's setting some cookie. I bet someone know how to write a simple bot can crack that thing also. I mean if someone wants to attack that particular domain specifically.

    I have no doubt, but that doesn't mean someone is going to waste the energy on it for bruting us.

    We tried Engintron and it was OK but had a lot of problems.

    Francisco

    would using something also help with brute forcing https://smyl.es/how-to-block-wp-login-php-brute-logins-with-cpanel-mod-security-and-configserver-firewall/

    I tried all the mod_sec rules and they didn't want to play nice. I don't know if it was mod_security, litespeed, or me, that was at fault.

    I prefer my setup, it deals with the issue before it even begins.

    Francisco

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @ramesh_vish said:

    Francisco said: Litespeed forks a new parent process that loads the new configuration while the old process handles requests. Once it's done loading, the old master process falls off. It's all seamless now that they addressed the graceful restart fixes.

    Thanks for the clarification. Though I wonder if OpenLiteSpeed uses the term "graceful restart" in the exact same way. Should try it on one of my servers to see.

    I'm pretty sure that OpenLitespeed is the same code as the paid editions, just lacking things like cPanel integration, .htaccess support, Apache configuration parsing, etc.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • MikePTMikePT Moderator, Patron Provider, Veteran

    Yeah well, it's a tough issue @Francisco. You might want to contact cPanel to see if they're able to do anything in their http rebuild script, they've been improving a lot of stuff lately, and their teams are well distributed. There should be another way to do it, I definitely get your point/issue here. Not easy to deal with.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    There's much bigger issues that cPanel should look into.

    If you try to check the 'SSL Hosts' part of WHM when you have a mountain of SSL's it takes forever and a day to parse all of the SSL's and load the information.

    Francisco

  • JorboxJorbox Member

    @Francisco said:

    k0nsl said: Try it first then you will know if its better than the old man (full of errors) "litespeed" or not :)

    Litespeed has its problems but they've fixed the ones I've been complaining about and things have been stable with it.

    Engintron is also stable, but i had a lot of issues with Cloudflare, user IP's, and just Apache still sometimes going a bit mental with PHP. It had issues where it didn't detect new SSL's or domains which led to it taking a long time to apply them. We ran it on 2 - 3 nodes in hopes of it being a good alternative since Litespeed kept crashing for us, but it wasn't.

    Litespeeds PHP is nice, and to be honest you can recompile cPanel's Apache with LSPHP, but I don't have the time/energy to screw around to see if that works.

    Francisco

    You are right with this point
    I had to restart the service every time after adding the ssl
    I will report it to them now and hope they will fix it soon
    Thank you

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @Jorbox

    Plus: Francisco is right according to the rule "Never change the engine of an airplane in flight!"

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @bsdguy said:
    @Jorbox

    Plus: Francisco is right according to the rule "Never change the engine of an airplane in flight!"

    The litespeed bugs were serious and caused a lot of headaches. We needed to at least try something else.

    They fixed that though, so I had no reason to keep trying to move away from it.

    Francisco

  • MikePTMikePT Moderator, Patron Provider, Veteran

    @Francisco said:
    There's much bigger issues that cPanel should look into.

    If you try to check the 'SSL Hosts' part of WHM when you have a mountain of SSL's it takes forever and a day to parse all of the SSL's and load the information.

    Francisco

    Yup, it does have time, but that cannot be cached, they need to ensure it's verifying the domains properly, granted it could be somehow improved.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @MikePT said:

    @Francisco said:
    There's much bigger issues that cPanel should look into.

    If you try to check the 'SSL Hosts' part of WHM when you have a mountain of SSL's it takes forever and a day to parse all of the SSL's and load the information.

    Francisco

    Yup, it does have time, but that cannot be cached, they need to ensure it's verifying the domains properly, granted it could be somehow improved.

    They keep a cache, they just don't use it. There's like /var/cpanel/ssl/ssl_installed.cache or something like that. The problem is that page reads out every SSL on your system and checks expiration, etc.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1MikePT
  • Francisco said: I have no doubt, but that doesn't mean someone is going to waste the energy on it for bruting us.

    Yeah, most of bots are running by bots! so it will benefit you :D

    Thanked by 1Francisco
  • williewillie Member

    Francisco said:

    Maybe? We don't use apache on any of the servers so it's not a huge rush on my end :P

    But you pay all those license fees to litespeed because apache lacks that feature, it sounds like.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @willie said:

    Francisco said:

    Maybe? We don't use apache on any of the servers so it's not a huge rush on my end :P

    But you pay all those license fees to litespeed because apache lacks that feature, it sounds like.

    Litespeed is all around a lot faster for us, or at the very least a lot less taxing on the nodes. I have litespeed nodes sitting in the ~12 load range but with apache it'll hit anywhere from 15 - 30. LSPHP may be able to get it further down but I don't think it's worth the time.

    Francisco

Sign In or Register to comment.