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

Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

nginx.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#81

Post by rhoml »

jallmann wrote: post #43
pfg wrote: post #13

Slightly OT: Does anyone know if packages for Ubuntu 14.04 are coming soon? We're using the official (mainline) repository[1] on Ubuntu 12.04, but Trusty doesn't seem to be supported yet. I've always preferred the official repository because I didn't want to start compiling nginx just for stuff like SPDY support. [1]: http://nginx.org/en/linux_packages.html

It's a good idea to be comfortable compiling/packaging your infra from source (including interpreters, libraries, etc), if only for the ability to quickly apply and deploy emergency patches. To demonstrate the importance of that capability, look no farther than Heartbleed. While distros are usually pretty good about updating critical software, they shouldn't be your only line of defense, except perhaps if you have a…

Agree on this, and also most of the production apps don't require the same modules.

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#82

Post by FooBarWidget »

cheald wrote: post #6
pedrocr wrote: post #5

I'm currently running apache 2.2.22 on my Ubuntu 12.04 servers. It works fine. I'll be moving them to 14.04 and thus getting apache 2.4.7. I mostly use it for mod_passenger webapps and static sites. 14.04 includes nginx 1.4.6 but I'm sure the phusion guys will package 1.6 soon so I can easily upgrade to that. Is there any killer feature in nginx that I'm missing, staying with apache 2.4?

Generally speaking, nginx is lighter/faster/less flexible (though no less powerful). It really shines on low-RAM VPSes where the RAM eaten up by a big list of httpd processes really adds up. For example, here are numbers from Apache+mod_passenger on my dev box: VSW RSS root 20050 0.0 0.1 416524 21020 ? Ss Apr18 0:13 /usr/sbin/httpd root 13370 0.0 0.0 217068 1984 ? Ssl Apr21 0:00 \_ PassengerWatchdog root 13373 0.0 0.…

Phusion Passenger author here.

Use passenger-memory-stats. It measures the Private Dirty RSS which is a more accurate measure of the actual memory usage because it takes shared memory into amount.

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#83

Post by sandGorgon »

Is anybody here using nginx as a REPLACEMENT for varnish ? I'm not an expert in devops, but will be deploying a webapp pretty soon - I was wondering if anyone is replacing varnish with nginx cache (memcached backed?)

nginx seems to be increasingly irreplaceable (with ssl caching,etc.) - so was looking to not having to deal with varnish.

I did some google searches, but was not able to find anything - including nginx configs, etc. Nginx Plus claims to be an accelerator, but again there isnt a lot of info around that.

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#85

Post by simonz05 »

sandGorgon wrote: post #83

Is anybody here using nginx as a REPLACEMENT for varnish ? I'm not an expert in devops, but will be deploying a webapp pretty soon - I was wondering if anyone is replacing varnish with nginx cache (memcached backed?) nginx seems to be increasingly irreplaceable (with ssl caching,etc.) - so was looking to not having to deal with varnish. I did some google searches, but was not able to find anything - including nginx c…

Have not used NGINX cache, but are a heavy user of Varnish + NGINX. Varnish is really good at caching and together with NGINX it makes a solid solution. NGINX cache seems (from skimming the docs) simple and it might be enough for your requirements, with Varnish you know it can do a whole lot and more. As always, it depends.

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#86

Post by cheald »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #82
cheald wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, nginx is lighter/faster/less flexible (though no less powerful). It really shines on low-RAM VPSes where the RAM eaten up by a big list of httpd processes really adds up. For example, here are numbers from Apache+mod_passenger on my dev box: VSW RSS root 20050 0.0 0.1 416524 21020 ? Ss Apr18 0:13 /usr/sbin/httpd root 13370 0.0 0.0 217068 1984 ? Ssl Apr21 0:00 \_ PassengerWatchdog root 13373 0.0 0.…

Phusion Passenger author here. Use passenger-memory-stats. It measures the Private Dirty RSS which is a more accurate measure of the actual memory usage because it takes shared memory into amount.

Thanks. I'd forgotten about that. Anyhow, the point remains :)

Production (nginx + passenger)

        17824  1      7.8 MB  0.0 MB   nginx: master process /etc/nginx/sbin/nginx -c /etc/nginx/conf/nginx.conf
	3247   17824  8.3 MB  1.0 MB   nginx: worker process
	3685   17824  8.3 MB  1.0 MB   nginx: worker process
	3696   17824  8.2 MB  0.8 MB   nginx: worker process
	3699   17824  8.2 MB  1.0 MB   nginx: worker process
	### Processes: 5
	### Total private dirty RSS: 3.71 MB

	----- Passenger processes -----
	PID    VMSize    Private  Name
	-------------------------------
	17806  5.5 MB    0.0 MB   PassengerWatchdog
	17809  36.1 MB   2.1 MB   PassengerHelperAgent
	17814  10.9 MB   0.0 MB   PassengerLoggingAgent
	3385   424.6 MB  48.7 MB  Passenger ClassicRailsApp
	### Processes: 4
	### Total private dirty RSS: 50.79 MB
Development (Apache + mod_passenger, no Rails apps running through it at the moment)

        ---------- Apache processes ----------
	PID    PPID   VMSize    Private  Name
	--------------------------------------
	13388  20050  488.3 MB  18.8 MB  /usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND
	13389  20050  488.3 MB  18.8 MB  /usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND
	13390  20050  488.3 MB  18.8 MB  /usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND
	13391  20050  488.3 MB  18.9 MB  /usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND
	13392  20050  488.4 MB  18.9 MB  /usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND
	20050  1      406.8 MB  1.1 MB   /usr/sbin/httpd -DFOREGROUND
	### Processes: 6
	### Total private dirty RSS: 95.45 MB

        ----- Passenger processes -----
	PID    VMSize    Private  Name
	-------------------------------
	13370  212.0 MB  0.3 MB   PassengerWatchdog
	13373  491.3 MB  0.3 MB   PassengerHelperAgent
	13381  213.1 MB  0.6 MB   PassengerLoggingAgent
	### Processes: 3
	### Total private dirty RSS: 1.18 MB

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#87

Post by faster »

gaoshan wrote: post #29
cheald wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the best way to accomplish this is to jump into IRC and declare that it is impossible to be done. You will have 6 answers in 3 minutes.

Or say, "Well, this is the only way to do it... nothing else works for nginx." and then present an inefficient solution. You will get ripped but solutions will arrive.

Cunningham's Law to the rescue!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#88

Post by anandrm »

pedrocr wrote: post #5

I'm currently running apache 2.2.22 on my Ubuntu 12.04 servers. It works fine. I'll be moving them to 14.04 and thus getting apache 2.4.7. I mostly use it for mod_passenger webapps and static sites. 14.04 includes nginx 1.4.6 but I'm sure the phusion guys will package 1.6 soon so I can easily upgrade to that. Is there any killer feature in nginx that I'm missing, staying with apache 2.4?

Nginx is much more scalable and utilizes less resources than apache. Apache uses a thread per socket , where as nginx is non blocking and runs with fewer threads .

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#89

Post by ashray »

sandGorgon wrote: post #83

Is anybody here using nginx as a REPLACEMENT for varnish ? I'm not an expert in devops, but will be deploying a webapp pretty soon - I was wondering if anyone is replacing varnish with nginx cache (memcached backed?) nginx seems to be increasingly irreplaceable (with ssl caching,etc.) - so was looking to not having to deal with varnish. I did some google searches, but was not able to find anything - including nginx c…

I've been using nginx+memcached for about 2 years on a high traffic site in production. It's been pretty great and runs without a hiccup. However bear in mind that Varnish is far more capable as nginx's memcached integration is fairly simplistic. You'll have to manage all your keys in the application layer as all nginx can do is send a certain request to a certain key and failover if it's not found. Varnish ACLs allow much finer control.

Also, I've come across benchmarks that say Varnish is faster. I just don't want to deal with a complex setup for something that gets the job done. (Job = lower the load on the app server)

Re: Nginx 1.6.0 stable released

#90

Post by lewaldman »

sandGorgon wrote: post #83

Is anybody here using nginx as a REPLACEMENT for varnish ? I'm not an expert in devops, but will be deploying a webapp pretty soon - I was wondering if anyone is replacing varnish with nginx cache (memcached backed?) nginx seems to be increasingly irreplaceable (with ssl caching,etc.) - so was looking to not having to deal with varnish. I did some google searches, but was not able to find anything - including nginx c…

Nginx+memc+cosistent_hashing+memcache :)
Post reply on HN