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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
@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
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
Yeah, most of bots are running by bots! so it will benefit you
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