I am building a docker which i can use for my work. I am using MacOS. If I create docker container with xdebug installed (Ubuntu 16, php7.2, xdebug, apache), code execution is extremely slow even if i am not listening to xdebug port. I have already get rid of 'mounts'.
So I decided to created something like this:
docker structure
And everything works just like i want. When i change cookie in browser, my wesbite works fast, but when i change cookie to another one, i am able to debug. But i am facing a problem that it logs out me when i change that cookie value and nginx proxies me to another server. (Each apache is a single docker container with ubuntu and apache)
So my question is if there is a workaround for this so I could share session between server that I don't get logged out? Or at least any ideas what needs to be changed in that scheme.
P.S. My project is Magento 2 and probably the source of an issue is in this one. But i actually don't think so.
According to https://www.nginx.com/products/nginx/load-balancing/, the sticky session is a feature of nginx plus.
Related
I'm facing the following issue: i've a public web server running on a given URL, say, www.mysite.com.
It uses apache2.
I've developed a python web app and I want to make it publicly accessible.
Locally, I use the command
mod_wsgi-express start-server wsgi.py
to start the server and everything works.
However, I would like to link only a specific URL to my app, such as mysite/my_test, leaving apache2 serving all the other requests.
In other words, I would like to set the server URL for mod_wsgi-express to mysite/my_test port 80.
By default I get Server URL: http://localhost:8000, and I would like to change this.
I've tried the --mount-point option, but I didn't see any difference.
I know I can change the apache configuration and adding WSGIScriptAlias but I'm facing multiple issues, so I'm searching for a quickest and easiest way.
Hope this is clear.
Thanks.
For reasons too insane to even go into, I am attempting to install using the Bitnami Magento 1.9.2.4 image on a fresh Amazon AWS/Lightsail Ubuntu 16.04 instance (2gbs to avoid complaints and be sure I don't run into anything unnecessary).
I think this is really more of an Apache question. After I finish the install (success), I can't get the server to respond via the instance IP address at the default port (8080).
Regarding the old Bitnami Image, you can get (or wget) that Magento 1.9.2.4 image still, it's over here:
wget "https://downloads.bitnami.com/files/stacks/magento/1.9.2.4-3/bitnami-magento-1.9.2.4-3-linux-x64-installer.run"
So for the sake of anyone who's trying to work through the whole process, once you pull the above down to your instance you need to chmod the above file to 755. This assumes you are in the directory with your download:
chmod 755 bitnami-magento-1.9.2.4-3-linux-x64-installer.run
Then run it using it's full path, like:
/home/ubuntu/bitnami-magento-1.9.2.4-3-linux-x64-installer.run
So the install is going to ask a bunch of questions, for anyone keeping track my answers were all yes (ie. yes to Git, PhpMyAdmin, Beetailer... whatever that is).
Then I created an admin user / password etc.
As far as the port I didn't have anything running on 8080 so the install defaulted the port to 8080 with HTTPS on 8443 with MySQL on 3306 (more on ports in a minute).
I think Host/Domain is one of the keys to this problem. When I couldn't get the server to respond I just recreated an instance and tried a different Domain during the install process. I tried: internal AWS IP, External ACTUAL IP, 127.0.0.1
Here's what the Magento 1.9 Domain prompt looks like:
So basically that sort of brings us up to date.
Once I finished the install, like a normal human used to using bitnami as a cloud image I assumed the server would respond at whatever the default path was at the IP address it was running on. Ie:
BASEIPADDRESS:8080/magento
Not the case. When I hit that the server does NOT respond, hence the question. In addition to the above I have also tried the BASEIPADDRESS, and the BASEIPADDRESS:8080
Results checking open ports
So since the server is not responding I figured I would check the ports.
First I checked using netstat:
netstat -lntu
I got back:
Then I realized that netstat is now depreciated... so I went with:
ss -lntu
I got back:
(excuse the images, formatting wouldn't work for text)
To me it looks like 8080 (default) is open in both of those results. So why isn't the server responding at the default location?
#Bitnami Status = OK
Checking the status with:
/home/ubuntu/magento-1.9.2.4-3/ctlscript.sh status
Everything looks good:
apache already running
mysql already running
Memcached not running
Since it says Memcached was not running, I started memcached to see if that was the issue, no it was not.
I can access the instance via SSH and yes I am sure the IP is right. See images above.
I also posted this to the Bitnami community but haven't heard anything over there. Will cross populate as I get ideas.
It looks to me that you configured Magento using the private IP address, so you would not be able to access from your browser. A way to check it is by executing the following command in your machine:
curl -L 127.0.0.1:8080/magento
If that provides output, then the IP is misconfigured, so you would need to reinstall using the proper IP
So this ended up being PRIMARILY due to not running the Bitnami stack installer as root / sudo:
sudo /home/ubuntu/bitnami-magento-1.9.2.4-3-linux-x64-installer.run
Why Install with Sudo on AWS/Lightsail?
So the reason you need to install as sudo has to do with the fact that when run as the normal user (ie. not root) the installer defaults to port 8080 which is NOT open on aws by default. To complicate matters further you may not be able to get things running properly even if you manually swap to port 80 AFTER you run the installer.
To avoid a scenario where port 80 requires root access to utilize I just re-created my instance and ran the installer as root with the above command.
Host Setting
During install I selected the public IP for the "Host" prompt and everything worked as I thought it might (straight out of the box).
Thanks to Javier Salermon who put me on the right track and the devs at Bitnami for cueing me into the fact that 8080 is not open by default.
I am going to finish my Meteor app in a few weeks. So the problem that I will face - how to make my app available to other people.
Firstly I bought a droplet on Digital Ocean. And started to read about the ways to deploy meteor app to production server.
I found 2 totally different ways to do that!
The first one is pretty simple (and so I really love it). Here is the link. I have to do a few steps - create a droplet with Ubuntu 14.04, then connect to this droplet via ssh, then install and run mup. After that anybody can access to my app. I worry, that there is no ssl support (my project is e-commerce, so I really need https-connection), but then I found in mup docs a short article How to set up SSL with Mup. So everything is perfect at first glance.
But then I found another way to deploy meteor app. Here is link. It is much more complicated. First I need to install node and mongo on my droplet. Then install and configure nginx. And then after many steps comes Meteor installation. Author don't explain why people need do deploy app this way, assuming that it is obviously to everyone. His explanation is "The problem with this is that it isn’t wise to run an application like Meteor through your public port (which is 80)".
I admit I have no experience and knowledge in such questions. The one thing that I can say exactly is that I need a really proper way to deploy e-commerce meteor app. And it doesn't matter I won't sleep many hours by doing this.
So question is: which one way is proper? And (it is important) why?
Either security and performance are important for this project. I am also going to use prerender.io or spiderable (for seo purposes) and fast render, if it can have an influence on your answers. and really thank you for answers guys!
You can deploy your Meteor App on server via different mechanism . There are lots of way to do the same thing.
Like as you said you also found two ways to do that.
So in first link you used Meteor up for deployment your application as you successfully deployed .
In second approach you need to first login to the server and than create user than install everything needed to your server machine after that you need to setup Nginx.
So as i guess your question is related to "Nginx" . And you want to know
1)Why we need to use Nginx
2)Which one is the better approach
So answer for your first question is as follows:-
Nginx (pronounced "engine x") is a web server that is used for many purpose mainly use for proxy pass. Means using nginx you can redirect your request from one url to another and the actual url is hidden from the UI (For securety purpose and for redirection).
Like in meteor your app is by default running on 3000 so one way is that you can open 3000 port and run your application on that port. But via nginx you can run your app on 80 port and as user hit any event than in nginx you can configure address where you want to send your request.
Like you can send them to 3000 port.
So now user don't know in actual where is your request going on because you show them port 80 but in actual your request is go to 3000 port. So this is the one advantage of using nginx same there are lots more.
So for configuration of nginx you just need to install nginx if you are using ubuntu than via simple command-:
sudo apt-get install nginx
then setting in nginx configuration file that is under the following directory:-
/etc/nginx/sites-enabled/default
just open this file and setup up your configuration here like:-
server {
listen 80;
server_name localhost;
root /home/parveen/meteor/app;
location / {
index /index.html;
}
location /api {
proxy_pass http://localhost:3000;
}
}
In this way you can configure your nginx setting as you want please read nginx documentation for detail.
After that you need to start your server using forever or nohup which you want to use so that your server will not stop as you exit from the login of server.
Conclusion:-
In the second approach you need to install everything by yourself via ssh login to your server than configuration of nginx and and then run your server.
If you do any changes than again you need to update your changes to server and then stop meteor app then restart that. But this is more secure approach and you can do what you want to do.
In first approach they are using mup (Meteor up) that do so many of works for you . You just need to do some configuration you can use Docker or as define in the blog (droplet) link you shared and just need to run meteor up command and that will first create a bundle for your app than run that so in the first approach if you do any changes than you not need to login again to your server update changes , what you need to do is just run again the same command and that will create new bundle with updates and run your project. But i don't think that is more secure.
So its depend on your requirement and choice which you want to use.
If you have any question than most welcome.
Hope this would help!
Thanks
I have setup a Vagrant box with Ubuntu 12.04 and Apache2 (all very vanilla, as per Vagrant's tutorial). I've been testing it for web development and I stumbled across a weird issue (not sure if bug or feature):
I have setup a synced folder across my machine and the VM folder. Apache has been serving the files mostly well, except (up to now) for a JSON file I'm using.
If I edit it locally, it seemingly syncs it to the VM folder. Both copies are the same.
Although, if I XHR it from the browser after modifying it, I still get the previously served version of that file.
At first, I thought the browser had it cached, but after trying with 2 different browsers (Chrome(ium) and Firefox), after clearing their respective cache, the issue remained.
I finally managed to go around it by reloading (vagrant reload) the VM.
What I was wondering is if this is a bug or a feature and how can I go around it. Is Apache configurable to not cache server side for a specific folder/file/filetype?
vagrant use previous setting until you provision that new setting again, so after every change in vagrant do provision to see reflected output. There is no apache2 cache problem.
For that use command
vagrant reload vmname --provision
if your vm name is default then use
vagrant reload default --provision
it will reboot vagrant vm and apply change to vm .After provision you will be able to see changes.
Finally figured it out. This relates to an issue that occurs with both Apache and /or Nginx: the sendfile option in server configuration.
Basically a new file wasn't being sent/updated client side even when it was changed server-side by Vagrant sync mechanism.
Check this answer for a solution: here.
So I have managed it. I can clone mercurial-repositories remotely using HTTP to my Windows Server 2003 machine and the ipaddress from that machine. Although I did deactivate IIS6 and am using Apache 2.2.x now. But not all works right now...darn! Here's the thing:
Cloning goes smooth! But when I want to push my changes to the original repository I get the message "cannot lock static http-repository". On the internet I get to read several explanations that Mercurial wasn't designed to push over HTTP connections. Still, on the Mercurial website there's something about configuring an hgrc file.
There's also the possibilty to configure Apache to host via HTTPS (or SSL). For this you have to load the module enabling OpenSSL and generating keys.
Configuring the hgrc file
Just add "push_ssl = false" under the [web] line. But where to put this file when pushing your changes back?! Because I placed it in the root of the server, in the ".hg" directory, nothing works.
Using SSL/HTTPS with Apache
When I try to access 'https://myipaddress' it fails, displaying a dutch message which would mean something like "server taking too long to respond". Trying to push also gives me a dutch error message which means about the same. It can not connect to my server via https although I followed the steps exactly at this blog.
I don't care which of the above solutions will work for me. Turns out none of them work so far. So please, can anyone help me with one of the solutions above? Pick the easiest! Help will be greatly appreciated, not only from me.
Summary
-Windows Server 2003
-Apache 2.2 with OpenSSL
-Mercurial 1.8.2
-I can clone, but not push!
Thank you!
Maarten Baar(s)
It seems like you might have apache configured incorrectly for getting it to do what you want. Based on your question it sounds like you have a path (maybe the root of the server) pointing to the repository you want to serve.
Mercurial comes with a script for this exact purpose, in the latest version it is hgweb.cgi. There are reasonably good instructions for setting it up on the mercurial site. It should allow both cloning and pushing. You will need the push_ssl=false if you will not be configuring https and also an allow_push line which will let certain users, or all (*) push to the repository. But all that should be part of the setup docs.