340 reputation
421
bio website ushr.com
location Cambridge, MA | Montreal | Capbreton France
age
visits member for 4 years, 6 months
seen Dec 4 at 13:46

Psychologist turned programmer, developing on the JVM with the Typesafe stack (Akka, Play, and Slick) server-side, and Coffeescript + GruntJS client-side.

Currently hacking on the U.S. Hockey Report, an amateur hockey scouting news service.

For contracting gigs email: admin '@' newmindit.com


Apr
25
comment Apache RewriteCond: inject string into URI between regex match groups
got it working, but this is a clear example of the benefit of having another perspective: you break out of 1-way-thinking ;-) Now, which is more efficient, your approach where you first check if URI contains date param, or mine where I first check the target pages? (keep in mind that only a small set of URIs require date injection)
Apr
25
asked Apache RewriteCond: inject string into URI between regex match groups
Apr
15
accepted Apache ProxyPass ignore static files
Apr
15
comment Apache ProxyPass ignore static files
ok, in 2.4 docs they state that multiple proxy directives outside a location block can be a performance bottleneck; however, given that I'll have a handful at most, a non-issue. Location blocks would work, BTW, if I had a more specific directive than <Location /> for the catch all. Appears that after <Location /static/> is processed, it moves on to <Location /> and proxies the /static/foo/bar.css file to Jetty, ignoring the first directive...
Apr
15
comment Apache ProxyPass ignore static files
+1, you are, however, correct in that breaking all the proxy rules outside of Location blocks does the trick ;-) Now, I would like to get this working in Location blocks since the I recall the 2.4 docs saying this is the way to do it now for max performance...
Apr
15
comment Apache ProxyPass ignore static files
I need to check this, but Apache 2.4 docs indicate that <Location />ProxyPass</Location> is the preferred/performant approach to proxying. I tried, BTW, ProxyPass /static ! outside of Location block and same deal, Jetty tries to serve it
Apr
15
asked Apache ProxyPass ignore static files
Mar
5
revised Apache 2.4 :: What happened to conf.d/ virtual hosts?
deleted 378 characters in body
Mar
5
accepted Apache 2.4 :: What happened to conf.d/ virtual hosts?
Mar
5
comment Apache 2.4 :: What happened to conf.d/ virtual hosts?
doh, that was rather silly, right there in 2.2 httpd.conf, thanks for the clue in ;-)
Mar
5
asked Apache 2.4 :: What happened to conf.d/ virtual hosts?
Feb
26
accepted CentOS 6 on 32bit or 64bit? Ample RAM, Java Stack
Feb
26
comment CentOS 6 on 32bit or 64bit? Ample RAM, Java Stack
right centos 6 has no upgrade path from 4 or 5. Had read some horror shows re: significant increase in memory usage with 64-bit, so just trying to cover the bases.
Feb
26
asked CentOS 6 on 32bit or 64bit? Ample RAM, Java Stack
Dec
18
awarded  Popular Question
Nov
9
revised ESXi :: vmxnet3 vNIC and Linux kernel errors
added 263 characters in body
Nov
8
revised ESXi :: vmxnet3 vNIC and Linux kernel errors
added 442 characters in body
Nov
7
comment How to speed up file copying onto a VMWare virtual server?
Amidst the slight rant ;-), meant to say that throttling performance based on license type is effectively a tax on the poor (small business owner). I can understand if features are absent, but providing a barely usable option is evil marketing (through painful performance they force you to upgrade or come up with workarounds)
Nov
7
comment How to speed up file copying onto a VMWare virtual server?
+1, you gotta be kidding me, have been pulling my hair out over this wondering why on earth transfers over ssh were maxing out at 6MB/sec; meanwhile, ftp transfers over a gigabit network are @100MB/sec. Big company policies like this completely blows, throttling performance to squeeze a few more $$ out of you. Anyway, @stavros, thanks for the tip, good to know why ssh transfers are dog slow...
Nov
3
comment ESXi :: vmxnet3 vNIC and Linux kernel errors
e1000 was not needed, although as I mentioned in my answer, for modestly loaded servers there is likely zero noticeable performance difference between e1000 and vmxnet3. I like the bleeding edge, however, so vmxnet3 it will be...