World: r3wp

If you are serving multiple virtual sites and using stunnel, can 
you have a certificate for each virtual domain?

AFAIK, a certificate is only valid for one FQDN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_qualified_domain_name).

Terry: map! uses a hash map, you would have similar results using 
hash! in R2. A hash map is as far from a NoSQL database as, IMHO, 
a NoSQL database is from a RDBMS ;-).

Yeah, was seeing if R3 was any faster.

A hash map is far from a NoSQL DB.. unless you're magic. I have a 
method that's working fine, now looking for the fastest key/value 
datastore i can find that's easy to work with.

Rebol is promising here.. 10x faster than Redis, but Redis is ready 
to go, gaining popularity, and open source.

<rant>One thing Cheyenne (and Rebol) needs to do is grow up, and 
lose Altme as the primary source of communication</rant>


AltMe is convenient because almost all Cheyenne users come here for 
realtime chatting, but I agree on your comment. Adding a web forum 
to the Cheyenne web site would be a good thing.

Doc, how do you think Cheyenne would stack up against Nodejs in benchmarks.. 
particularly  handling 1000s of simulaneous clients?

Terry, what Redis usage are you comparing to?

Same-process R3 map! vs Redis over the network?

redis you're forced over the network, if you coupled map! with Cheyenne, 
there's no such issue. Which is why Im curious as to Cheyennes benchmarks.

in other words, would Cheyenne + map! be faster than say Nodejs + 
Redis?  .. without having to spend the day testing

Nodejs: I'm not sure if JS in V8 executes much faster than R2, I 
guess that V8's JIT would give it a significant raw speed advantage 
other Cheyenne. On the scalability side, Nodejs will scale much better 
than Cheyenne for a high number of concurrent connections, just because 
it can use polling and kernel queues instead of the non-scalable 
select( ) used in WAIT by REBOL. This is an important aspect if long 
lasting connections are used.

by "long lasting" would that include websockets?

Yes.

But for a hundred of concurrent connections, I'm not sure that it 
would matter that much, both JS and REBOL have their own internals 
overheads, so I guess that the select( ) bottleneck would really 
start to show up when reaching several thousands concurrent connections 
(cf the "C10k problem").

Kaj: "not exists? incoming-dir/:out" => thanks, that was a nasty 
one! I've commited your fix in svn.

Can Cheyenne handle 10K clients?

Kaj: "Cheyenne doesn't seem to load its MIME definitions from the 
standard location on Unix systems, %/etc/mime.types, loading an internal 
list %misc/mime.types instead"


Yes, it was done that way to ensure a common base of mime-types across 
all OSes. Anyway, I have in my todo list an entry for such a feature. 
I'm not yet sure if it should be by default, or controled by an explicit 
option.

Kaj: "From earlier messages here, it was my understanding that Cheyenne 
on Linux can run its UniServe taskmaster processes under a non-root 
user account by enabling 'userdir in the modules and 'user and 'group 
in the globals. However, when I do that, all of Cheyenne is still 
running as root. The designated user and group exist. What else do 
I need to do?"


It was working last time I've checked. What Cheyenne version are 
you using? Have you remove all the log files generated by Cheyenne 
that are own by root before testing? Did you tried with other combinations 
of user and group?

Terry: short anwser: yes and no. Long answer: you should be more 
precise in your question. I guess that you're asking if a *single* 
Cheyenne instance can handle 10k concurrent connections on long lasting 
communications (HTTP keepalive or web sockets), the answer is : I 
don't know, I never tested that case. My guess is that if all clients 
are not sending requests simultaneously, Cheyenne should be able 
to handle it, but with a probably significant latency in the responses. 
For a real world web site, when dealing with short lasting requests, 
having a continuous load of 10k connections would mean that you're 
having a few million hits per hour making your web site one of the 
top 50 sites in the world, giving you enough money to invest in a 
huge cluster of servers to nicely handle the load with dozens of 
Cheyenne's instances ;-).

Can I cluster Cheyenne?

Just kidding :)

has anyone tried putting a webcache like Varnish in front of Cheyenne?

I'm only concerned with latency with 100 clients... my current system 
uses SQL and bogs down nastily while I do analysis on 4000 items 
and their properties (sorting, filtering, finding etc)
I/O Costs:

L1: 3 cycles
L2: 14 cycles
RAM: 250 cycles
DISK: 41,000,000 cyles
NETWORK: 240,000,000 cycles

Doc, you should edit this wikipedia article as well 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_servers

You can dispatch load between several Cheyenne instances very easily 
using tools like nginx.

Lightweight web servers are Web servers which have been designed 
to run with very small resource overhead because of hardware, environment, 
or simply for the challenge of it.


According to this definition and the example of target devices (Calculator, 
C64, 64KB devices), I don't think that Cheyenne qualifies due to 
REBOL's quite large memory footprint.

Terry, why don't you add Cheyenne to that Wikipedia page? A project 
is not supposed to comment on its own product on Wikipedia

There are several servers in there that are not tiny weight, pretty 
much in the ball park of Cheyenne, if you were look at code size 
and handling

Graham: a few links about your question: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#Support_for_name-based_virtual_servers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication

SNI is in stunnel's todo list: http://stunnel.mirt.net/?page=todo_sdf

It also says that NginX supports it, so that may be a better option 
than STunnel

Definitive information!  Great ... I shall look at NginX

http://www.nginx.org/en/docs/http/configuring_https_servers.html

at the bottom talks about SNI support

Anyone got some quick instructions on how to use Nginx as a proxy 
for Cheyenne?

I use something like this in my nginx config:
        location ~ \.(rsp|cgi)$ {
            proxy_pass   http://lucya.desajn.web:8080;
            
            proxy_set_header   X-Real-IP        $remote_addr;

            proxy_set_header   X-Forwarded-For  $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
            proxy_set_header   X-URI $request_uri;

            proxy_set_header   if-modified-since $http_if_modified_since;
            
			client_max_body_size       10m;
            client_body_buffer_size    128k;

            proxy_connect_timeout      90;
            proxy_send_timeout         90;
            proxy_read_timeout         90;

            proxy_buffer_size          4k;
            proxy_buffers              4 32k;
            proxy_busy_buffers_size    64k;
            proxy_temp_file_write_size 64k;
        }

I use nginx as a frontend server and cheyenne as a backend where 
Cheyenne ca cretate static pages served by nginx... My motto for 
thic combo is: where west meets east as its American-Russian connection:)

Thanks... now anyone setup https with SNI ?  :)

I never tryied... but maybe you can try something like that http://kbeezie.com/view/configuring-sni-with-nginx/

ok .. thanks

Oldes: would it help if X-Real-IP header was used by Cheyenne to 
store the real client IP in HTTP logs? I was thinking about addind 
an option to tell Cheyenne that a HTTP header is carrying the real 
IP.

I get an "confirm" error from a RSP page that tries to delete a local 
file. How can I do this?

What do you get when trying to delete this file from console launched 
with the same uid/gid than Cheyenne?

I start cheyenne as root (not recommended I know but...). So this 
shouldn't be a problem.

I have the feeling that the security dialog is jumping in... but 
I use the Linux SDK version.

Are you using your own encapped Cheyenne binary?

I found a series of problems due to which switching to a non-root 
user and group doesn't work

The primary reason was that, although the 'library interface component 
was supposed to be included in R2.7.7, it is in View but not in Core, 
at least in the Linux version

This makes Cheyenne run with a primitive configuration without an 
advanced system interface

I asked in RebDev to fix this in R2.7.8

Trying with View only works when the window environment is started, 
even when X11 is installed on a machine, so this is game over for 
headless servers