Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Should Ditch Nginx

hipyoungstartup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#61

Post by egwor »

chrissnell wrote: post #56
dknecht wrote: post #37

CloudFlare generates 50gb/s of logs globally and have handled collecting this volume in two ways. Historically the logs are sent to a local syslog-ng through the use of a PIPE and the forwarded to central logger. This can be done with nginx with no patches by just treating the PIPE as file. Just make sure you do a little buffering inside nginx. access_log /dev/nginx_access log_format_name buffer=64k flush=10s; Since…

Apologies everyone for the somewhat o/t question here but, what do you guys do with your 50Gb of logs every second? Where do they go after they leave nginx?

definitely interested in this. Where do you send this for analysis? Elastic search? Can that keep up?

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#62

Post by x0x0 »

venus wrote: post #52
jacques_chester wrote: post #23

This blog post demonstrates why the syslog feature is ideal for segmenting Nginx's market. Almost nobody cares about it, except the sort of place doing > tens of millions of requests per day. The sort of place that might have some money and the scale to realise that a few thousand bucks is cheaper than a bunch of engineer time. It's a good case study in smart pricing.

"NGINX Plus Standard" costs $1,350 annual subscription per server. It sounds like this company has a pretty strange setup, running "hundreds of VMs", presumably all running nginx, and it's the combined impact of those VM logging writes that are so burdening the NetApp devices. In this case, if they kept the same setup, I can see that it would be prohibitively expensive to pay for nginx plus on every single one of tho…

first, that price is almost certainly negotiable, particularly if you call and say "i'm running a ton of light vms for some strange reason"

second, I think, at least for me, what bugs me is the massive entitlement on display. God forbid devs who built an awesome piece of software get paid; instead, dude whinges on the internet that he might have to gasp patch and compile an rpm or fork out some money. The horrors!

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#63

Post by orthecreedence »

jaytaylor wrote: post #44
neya wrote: post #39

Not relating to the Author's opinion, I would just like to know if there's a legitimate, competent competitor to Nginx apart from Apache? Just curious as I've already had a bad experience with monopolies in the past.

HAProxy[0] has fit the bill for me in many instances. [0] http://haproxy.1wt.eu/

Just want to mention that HAProxy isn't a web server like nginx, but a proxy. So while it competes at some things nginx is commonly used for, its not a full competitor (you wouldn't replace nginx+php-fpm w/ HAProxy+php-fpm).

That said, if you're looking for a proxy/load balancer, HAProxy is most likely the absolute best you're going to find anywhere, ever...and the price is right ;)

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#64

Post by venus »

jacques_chester wrote: post #57
venus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NGINX Plus Standard" costs $1,350 annual subscription per server. It sounds like this company has a pretty strange setup, running "hundreds of VMs", presumably all running nginx, and it's the combined impact of those VM logging writes that are so burdening the NetApp devices. In this case, if they kept the same setup, I can see that it would be prohibitively expensive to pay for nginx plus on every single one of tho…

I am not disagreeing that in this specific case that the licence structure might lead to unhappy arithmetic. I do however stand by my original point that syslog support is an excellent cleavage point to segment the customer base.

Yeah, I do agree with that.

I'm slightly less happy about the HTTP live streaming being in the Plus package, though. I've been playing around a lot with a media app using HLS and I can't even trial using nginx for it - not that I'd be too happy paying $1300 a year since I don't have a single user yet. I can see how they are trying to get money out of the big streaming companies, but it's not too friendly to the little guy.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#65

Post by danenania »

Why is this getting upvoted? We should ditch Nginx because they are trying to build a sustainable business on top of their amazing OSS contribution?

When quality OSS projects like Nginx turn into profitable businesses, that's very good for OSS as a whole. We should be cheering them and gasp paying them if we need their high end features, not abandoning them.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#66

Post by avenger123 »

secstate wrote: post #12
skj wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This position is without merit. People have every right to say that one particular free option is not what they're looking for, and explain why it's not what they're looking for.

While I agree with your statement on it's face, in the context of the OP, this is just whinging. The author is not just offering constructive criticism on a possible fork of NGINX, he's calling the NGINX business out for "withholding" features. The tone is distinctly one of being "owed" a feature common to another popular FOSS project, instead of being grateful for everything NGINX provides (which is a lot, and proba…

What I love the most about the author's post is the "fork it" part.

The author goes out of his/her way to pick out what's wrong with NGINX due to the inadequate SAN infrastructure and at the end suggests someone else fork the project so his/her company can continue to milk the free software of the backs of others.

It's somewhat disgusting.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#67

Post by rdtsc »

Ok, fight fire with fire (inflammatory post with inflammatory response) here it goes:

Scumbag Hipster Young Startup -- with a 3 floor building (mentioned CEO coming down all the way from the 3rd floor), aggregating 50M events related to sales every day, taking advantage of hundreds of thousands of volunteered man hours put into the FOSS stack they are using, are throwing a hissy fit about having to pay the creators of the software they are using for an enterprise feature.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#68

Post by twelve40 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #9

Then ditch it and move on. If everyone made a post every time they chose not to buy X product but instead to use Y product then HN would be unreadable. You have the source, patch/fork it. If you're too lazy/not skilled enough, switch to Apache and don't tell us about it.

Although I share your sentiment, noc and devops people are legitimately paranoid about stability, so no, he's neither lazy nor unskilled - this part I can easily believe. What I can't understand is, if they have tons of traffic and he admittedly uses a product he likes, why doesn't he just pay for it. FOSS does not enslave its authors to perpetually provide free infinite scalability for every use case.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#69

Post by krenoten »

If you don't want it to hit disk, why don't you just not log to disk? Are you running a unix variant? There are several ways to do this. Why not log to /dev/shm or a pipe, instead of changing nginx?

Rsyslog is also probably not the best choice for high volume log aggregation. It performs an rpc per message. That sucks. Use something that batches, like scribe.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#70

Post by rurounijones »

dknecht wrote: post #37

CloudFlare generates 50gb/s of logs globally and have handled collecting this volume in two ways. Historically the logs are sent to a local syslog-ng through the use of a PIPE and the forwarded to central logger. This can be done with nginx with no patches by just treating the PIPE as file. Just make sure you do a little buffering inside nginx. access_log /dev/nginx_access log_format_name buffer=64k flush=10s; Since…

gb is GByte or GBit?
Post reply on HN