World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Gregg 6-Dec-2010 [9345] | And perhaps secure [time time!] |
Steeve 6-Dec-2010 [9346x2] | yeah perhaps... is there a ticket for that request ? |
I I guess, Carl didn't want offer this by default, because the slow down may be drastic. | |
Gregg 8-Dec-2010 [9348] | I don't know if there's a ticket. I could live with relatively coarse granularity, which would be much better than nothing, if that at least made it possible. |
Pekr 8-Dec-2010 [9349] | At least a memory constraint is a good one. That should prevent memory leakage. I personally don't like eval at all, as my brain is not mature enough to be able to guess, how many cycles will my script ideally need. I would welcome time constraint as well, and it was proposed, but not accepted. Here's what does not work yet: # If the program quits, the exit code is set to 101, the same as any security termination; however, we may want to use special codes to indicate the reason for the quit. # Some types of loops are not yet checked, but we will add them. For example, PARSE cycles are not yet counted. # Time limits are not yet supported, but may be added in the future. However, the cycle limit is better for most cases, because it is CPU speed independent. |
Steeve 8-Dec-2010 [9350] | You can quit/return any exit code |
Kaj 8-Dec-2010 [9351] | It's about automatic quits by the SECURE functionality |
Steeve 9-Dec-2010 [9352] | yeah, and you can catch it as an error. It stay relevant. |
Kaj 9-Dec-2010 [9353] | Yeah, but you can't analyse the error, because you always get 101 |
Steeve 9-Dec-2010 [9354x2] | Are you sure ? accordingly the doc, we got : >> secure [eval [throw 50000]] >> loop 100000 [next "test"] ** Access error: security violation: eval ** Where: loop ** Near: loop 100000 [next "test"] So, you can decipher the error message and send back the appropriate quit/return code |
security violation: eval | |
BrianH 9-Dec-2010 [9356] | You can also do it in a try statement and check the error codes. |
Kaj 9-Dec-2010 [9357] | Ah, seems this limitation only applies then if you let R3 quit without further processing |
AdrianS 10-Dec-2010 [9358] | Bad news - looks like WebSockets will be disabled in Firefox 4 due to security concerns. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bludice/~3/S6Lw15UdA2I/websocket-security |
Andreas 10-Dec-2010 [9359] | Same in Chrome: http://codereview.chromium.org/5643005/ |
Kaj 10-Dec-2010 [9360] | Aargh |
Dockimbel 10-Dec-2010 [9361] | I saw the news yesterday for FF4. The badly written RFC for ws was alarming since the beginning, this kind of design defect doesn't surprise me much, but it's such a waste...I hope the new CONNECT-based workaround will be adopted rapidly. |
Kaj 10-Dec-2010 [9362] | Google can't hire designers as good as work for REBOL for free ;-) |
nve 18-Dec-2010 [9363] | When can we exepect Cheyenne like NGINX ? What is missing ? Cheyenne is the best product to promote REBOL !? |
Oldes 18-Dec-2010 [9364] | Why? I'm using Cheyenne with Nginx... Nginx for serving static content, dynamic by Cheyenne. I use slogan: "when east meets west". |
nve 18-Dec-2010 [9365] | Ok, they claimed that "Nginx now hosts nearly 6.55% (13.5M) of all domains worldwide." When for Cheyenne ? |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9366] | There's a possibility that users might require certificates to access my app ... can that be done with Cheyenne and something else? |
Andreas 18-Dec-2010 [9367] | Client certificates? |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9368] | So, what would you have to use server side to manage and authenticate the certificates? |
Andreas 18-Dec-2010 [9369] | Sorry, that was a question, not a suggestion. Do you actually want to authenticate based on client certificates? |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9370] | Yes |
Dockimbel 18-Dec-2010 [9371] | Use SSL: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/securitymonkey/howto-securing-a-website-with-client-ssl-certificates-11500 |
Oldes 18-Dec-2010 [9372] | Or use Nginx as a reverse proxy to Cheyenne. |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9373x5] | So, I don't need Apache then? |
I'm currently using Cheyenne ... and stunnel to provide SSL | |
Looks like I could still use stunnel .. and put all the certificates in a directory and disconnect users who don't present a certificate | |
I might have a few hundred users ... so hopefully this can cope. | |
So, I guess I'm asking if anyone has experience with this and was it straight forward? | |
Kaj 18-Dec-2010 [9378] | Hundred users total, or concurrently? |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9379x2] | total |
I'm looking to implement a nationwide registry for patients taking biologics | |
Kaj 18-Dec-2010 [9381] | Shouldn't be much of a problem performance wise |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9382] | worst case scenario - 60 concurrent users |
Kaj 18-Dec-2010 [9383] | How many requests would they make within a minute? |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9384] | I wouldn't have thought that many ... of course I'm just guessing! |
Kaj 18-Dec-2010 [9385x2] | Well, that determines your scalability concerns |
60 Concurrent users is a lot - except if they're idling for five minutes between every request | |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9387x3] | I guess I can just get a bigger VM if it comes down to it ... :) Yes, I expect they'll be idling most of the time |
So, I guess the next question is .. how does one determine if the server is overloaded? | |
read the logs and ?? | |
Kaj 18-Dec-2010 [9390x2] | Your customers will be on the phone yelling at you :-) |
If it's a Unix box, you use tools such as uptime, top and htop | |
GrahamC 18-Dec-2010 [9392x3] | Windows 2003 server on Ec2 |
I gave them my cellphone so they can pay the charges for yelling at me! | |
heh... the freemed guy was asking if I can rewrite my drug interaction portal in php and python! | |
older newer | first last |