340 reputation
320
bio website ushr.com
location Cambridge, MA | Montreal | Capbreton France
age
visits member for 4 years, 5 months
seen Nov 22 at 17:05

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
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...
Nov
3
answered ESXi :: vmxnet3 vNIC and Linux kernel errors
Nov
3
comment ESXi :: vmxnet3 vNIC and Linux kernel errors
@mdpc, yes, yum updated machine, latest kernel and latest vmware tools. Ethernet ports on the host are fine, no dropped packets or errors of any kind. I have read that only in 2.6.32+ is vmxnet3 built-in to the kernel, that may be the issue, the kernel does not understand a NIC capable of passing 10gb/sec (obviously not realistic in physical network but between VMs, e.g. web server and database, or to a backup VM, it would be nice). Anyway, bringing down affected VM and downgrading the NIC now, will report back results of course...