I found the fact that HAProxy 2.3 higher supports HTTP/3 (QUIC) through this link.
I’d like to know how to enable HTTP/3 (QUIC) in HAProxy.
I can’t find any data related to this anywhere.
I already downloaded the latest HAProxy source (v2.4-dev5) and built it with USE_QUIC=1.
Any suggestions would be great!
Thanks.
I think you are mistaken as to the current level of support. From the announcement of v2.4-dev5:
Fred's experimental QUIC code made its entrance! OK OK OK please calm
down, it's just a part of the code that's needed to get merged to
continue the required infrastructure changes and there is absolutely
nothing functional at this step. I think at best it will handle a
handshake.
Related
I would know what are the queries that make slow my Joomla website. I know that there is the possibility to log all the slow query.
Unfortunately, I have only the access to the ftp where the website is hosted. Can I see this log also in ftp? Or I have to access to the server?
There are other way to see this log?
Thanks
As Rinos already said, there can be different reasons for a slow Joomla-Site.
If you cannot find a db-query being responsible for that check the network-tab in your developer-tools for resources that slow down your site.
One possible reason can be, that you are loading http-resources via https (so if you have hardcoded integrations of images, script-files etc. that will load via http while your site running in https, the developer tools will bark at you something about 'mixed content' ;) )
Depending on your Joomla there also might be some Modules/Components/Plugins that are not well designed... maybe deactivating them by chance and refreshing (yep, might be lot of work) will give you a hint. BUT: Please be careful, since there are some Plugins like the authentication-plugins that are needed and if you deactivate them you might "lock" yourself out. Normally core components and plugins shouldn't be responsible for that at all.
If you have a look at the queries from the debug-console, there are some queries that perform a full-table-scan. Maybe you'll find one among these that are performance-hungry.
If not so, please check your global configuration in the Joomla Backend under System -> Global Configuration and try check the following things:
Is caching enabled?
What kind of caching do you use?
Under the Server-Tab check for gzip-compression of your page
if you force https, do you have any http-resources on your site (like mentioned above)
Some of the possibilities here might help you to gain some performance, but if you still have performance problems, my next look would be the server-config.
There are still other things you might give a "heads up":
What PHP-Version are you running? PHP 7.x brings a remarkable performance-boost
Have a look at your php.ini file. What about your memory-limit and other options (have a look here for the technical requirements that are recommended: https://downloads.joomla.org/technical-requirements
Back on your site, are there any javascript-errors (the developer-tools of your browser will tell you)
Well, these are several possibilities you might pay some attention... Performance-Issues can have many reasons but hopefully some of the above said things might lead you on the right track ;)
regards
You can active debug in joomla from Configuration system, then you can see at the end of pages in "live site" all query performed with time and memory used, and much more you can help for understand what is slowing down your site
From MDN：
This feature has been removed from the Web standards. Though some browsers may still support it, it is in the process of being dropped. Avoid using it and update existing code if possible; see the compatibility table at the bottom of this page to guide your decision. Be aware that this feature may cease to work at any time.
Because it was replaced by Service Workers.
AppCache has a not so good API design and Service Worker can be used more flexible.
I'm trying to find a way to launch a desktop application from a browser for os x. This application will be for customers only and should only be used for the hardware we provide.
I'd like to start off by saying I think this is a stupid idea. I'm being forced to use this approach by our CEO. I understand security policies could be an issue, as well as glaring vulnerabilities.
Since they can only run this on a single device I don't know that jws would be the right solution. I haven't used it but based on what I've read it doubles as a distribution method (which we don't want). If it were to be jws then it would have to some how have to recognize the device we provided them to ensure it is being placed on the appropriate hardware, possibly based on the serial # (which I don't believe you can get from the browser).
Additionally, the browser would call methods and pass arguments to the application.
Is this even possible? If so, what tool would you recommend? Again, I'm only the messenger for this terrible idea.
You probably have Chrome or Safari configured to handle http://<uri> URIs, but many other types exist. Have you ever seen custom URI schemes used like itunes://<uri>, steam://<uri>, or skype://<uri> ?
Just like for http, when your OS tries to fetch the resource, it will attempt to handle the request in the application that registered a handler for that scheme.
If that's the kind of thing you're looking for, this question has already been answered.
My suspicion is that you were unaware of the term. If that answer works for you, we can mark this question as a duplicate.
In complement to #naomik's answer (which I believe is the right one), there are projects like AppJS, Fluid or Electron which are pretty much willing to bring web based apps to the desktop.
For the matter of communicating the App and your browser (should I say your server?), you could use an approach of message queues and websockets to get there, surely, it is a huge effort of orchestration and workarounds but in the end it is possible to get you there.
(Posted on behalf of the OP).
This does not appear to be possible. If you are considering this please don't, there are better solutions. I have finally convinced my CEO to use Angular2 inside electron for example.
Is ServiceWorker intended to replace Appcache, or is the intention that the two will coexist? Phrased another way, is appcache about to become deprecated?
Blink's Service Worker team is keen on deprecating AppCache (We will follow our usual intent to deprecate process). We believe that Service Worker is a much better solution. Also, it should be pretty easy to offer a drop-in replacement for AppCache built on top of SW. We'll start by collecting usage metrics and do some outreach.
AppCache and Service Worker should coexist without any issue since offering offline support via AppCache for browsers that don't support Service Workers is a valid use case.
#flo850 If it's not working, please let us know by filing a bug.
I must say that Services Worker is not only the replacement for AppCache, but it’s far more capable. An AppCache can’t be partially updated, a byte-by-byte manifest comparison to trigger the update seems odd and there are several use cases leading to security and terrible usability problems.
Even Chrome and Firefox are planning to stop support for AppCache in the near future. Now that service workers are supported by Chrome, Opera, and Firefox.Also, The noises coming from Microsoft and Safari have been positive with respect to implementation and under consideration.
As a cache tool, it will coexist with appcache. Appcache works on virtually every browser.
But service workers are a solid foundation that will permit new usage like push (even when the browser is in the background) , geofencing or background synchronization.
With HTML5's offline capabilities is it possible to create an app that will persist after the connection is lost and the browser is closed? Specifically, here's what I'd like to do:
Connect to the app while online. Download the entire app including a small database it runs on.
Close the browser and disconnect.
Open the browser again while offline and load the app from the local cache.
Thanks to Mark Pilgrim's excellent book I believe I have an idea of how to accomplish the first step, I'm mainly wondering if the last step is possible. If this is possible, I'm guessing it requires some configuration of the browser. Any settings I should be aware of that aren't obvious?
Thanks very much for any help offered.
The last step should be possible - it just depends on what extent you want to implement it to. To my knowledge it shouldn't require any browser settings. You just have to be aware of the limitations of local storage, which I believe is 5mb max at the moment (for most browsers). Obviously you'd have to perform the checks for such permissions as outlined int the Dive Into Html5 guide you linked.
The quickest and dirtiest way is to simply issue a GET request to your online app. If it responds correctly, then use the online version. If not, use the local cache. Just disguise the timeout/failed response as a 'loading' screen.