I have a Wordpress site and would like to turn Keep Alive on. I attempted to edit .htaccess file by adding following code:
<ifModule mod_headers.c>
Header set Connection keep-alive
</ifModule>
Because it didn’t take any effect I contacted my hosting company. I was informed that their server configuration requires editing php.ini file in order to have Keep Alive turned on. I was googling for a while but was unable to find anything about how appropriate code, with Keep Alive declaration, in php.ini looks like. Searching through the list of php.ini directives didn’t lead me to anything similar to Keep_Alive = on. Could anyone please help me with this. Any clues will be appreciated. Regards,
My question is outdated already. Clearly I was misinformed yesterday by the consultant. The real problem is that my hosting plan doesn’t allow to have the Keep Alive turned on. Sorry I was bothering you. Regards
Related
I have a website and if you go to www.domainname.com/sitename/ it always shows an old cached file, but if you go to www.domainname.com/sitename/index.html it shows the most up to date. Is there a way of ensuring the user sees the most up to date without typing index.html?
It kind of depends on what hoster/server you are using, but usually caching can be controlled by putting a file called ".htaccess" in the base folder, containing something like
Header set Expires 0
FileETag None
Or similar...
You should check your hoster's documentation first, otherwise try what you can find by googling.
Also, please note that caching is a good thing and it's better to configure it correctly than just disabling it. However if you don't expect much traffic, then it probably does not matter.
Basically, this is going to probably an incredibly generic and poorly crafted question. I do apologise in advance for that and hope you can look past that and potentially offer some solutions/help.
I am looking at starting a new project, which I guess functions similar to Shopify in a way. Users will pay a monthly fee and then get their own website which has a store-style thing on it.
I am comfortable with most aspects of making this, however, the one thing I'm not completely sure how to do is if they want to have a custom domain (which I assume most customers would). Based on my experience with services such as Spotify and Tictail, to do this I am going to have to get them to change their nameservers to my nameservers. After that, I'm not completely sure how it will function and how to set it up. All of the files for the sites are going to be pretty much the exact same so I don't need much to change there.
So basically my main question is, how would I develop it to automatically host certain content when someone sets their nameservers as my nameservers? I would like it to be completely automatic if possible, but I don't mind if there is a little manual input.
I'm super sorry if the question isn't worded properly or if it's confusing as I've never developed something like this. A simple point in the right direction would be much appreciated as I'm not too sure where to start with this.
Thanks
It depends on the server technology you use to provide such user related nameservers. If I understand you properly, you are looking to get something like:
# Your service runs here:
http://yourdomain.com
# For the user account (user specific application)
http://{unique_username}.yourdomain.com/
# Then you would have (for N users)
http://username0.yourdomain.com/
http://username1.yourdomain.com/
...
http://usernameN.yourdomain.com/
The way you have to avoid dns hijacking is to actually specify the nameserver in the server host configuration. There are many servers around which provide virtual host configurations to allow many different domain names in the same ip address.
As an example, in nginx this can be done using virtual hosts. In your case you would need to programatically create them. In order to do so, a file must be added to the folder /etc/nginx/sites-available. This could be a file called: /etc/nginx/sites-available/username0 with this content:
server {
listen 80
server_name username0.yourdomain.com;
root /path/to/app/;
...
}
So for your solution, you would create a file per customer user. In order to activate a new created virtualhost (server block), link it in the folder with path: /etc/nginx/sites-enabled
ln -s /etc/nginx/sites-avaible/username1 /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/username1
sudo service nginx reload
Read more about dns hijacking here and have a look to virtual hosts implementations, like the nginx server blocks shown above, or the apache virtual hosts.
Good luck!
i have the following situation, due to the IT departement at our university, i had three choices to point a top level domain to the content hosted at the university server:
Redirect
use frames
use a reverse proxy
i know frames are deprecated and suck, however getting a server where i can set up a reverse proxy sounded like a bit of an overkill and redirect was not an option, as the dirty url of the webapp server would appear in the addressbar.
So, when i looked up the site in Chrome, i got the message that the site contains unsafe content, opening the console told me that the "unsafe content" are the Google Webfonts i included in the page. All other browsers worked just fine...
Does anyone have an elegant solution for this? I'm not really happy with using frames in the first place.
Thank you guys in advance, cheers!
I will of course provide all the config files/code snippets needed!!
The best and cleanest option in this case would be reverse proxy with URL rewriting (if you don't like the webapp's ones). If you post your endpoints we'd be able to prepare ones for you. Or check whatever tutorial (for e.g. this, this or this)
One important thing which nobody mentions is to use the ProxyPreserveHost directive if on other end you deal with headers processing.
Also you may consider Forward Proxy instead of Reverse one, its easier to configure.
Complete reference here.
Mixing http and https, may be the cause of the unsafe content error. Be sure you are loading the pages and the fonts with the same protocol.
As for pointing your domain, I like the virtual host solution above. If your IT department says that everything else is "impossible", you might be stuck with frames. :)
Notice how the default domain for stackoverflow is http://stackoverflow.com and if you try to goto http://www.stackoverflow.com it bounces you to http://stackoverflow.com ?
What is the reason for this? Not the tech reason (as in the http code, etc) but why would the site owners want to do this?
I know it's purely aesthetic and I always have host-headers for both www and not, but is there a reason to bounce a user to a single domain, subheaded or not?
Update 1
Not having a subdomain is called a bare domain. Thanks peeps! never knew it had a term :)
Update 2
Thanks for the answers so far - please note I understand that www.domain.com can point to domain.com. This is not a question about if i should offer both or either/or, it's asking why some sites default to a baredomain instead of www subdomains, or vice-versa. Cheers.
Jeff Atwood actually HAS explained why he's gone for bare domains here and here. (Nod to Jonas Pegerfalk for the post :) )
Jeff's post (and others in this thread) also talk about the problems of a bare domain with cookies and static images. Basically, if you have cookies on in a bare domain, then all subdomains are forced also. The solution is to purchase another domain, as posted by the Yahoo Perf Team here.
Jeff Atwood has written a great article about the The Great Dub-Dub-Dub Debate. There is also a blog entry in the Stackoverflow blog on why and how Stackoverflow has dropped the www prefix.
as far as I can tell, it doesn't really matter, but you should pick one or the other as the default, and forward to that.
the reason is that, depending on the browser implementation, www.example.com cookies are not always accessible to example.com (or is it the other way around?)
for more discussion on this, see:
in favor of www
http://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/section/domainnameservice/baredomain#baredomain - This webhost lists several good reasons for anyone considering doing more than simple webhosting to consider (such as load balancing, subdomains with different content, etc.)
http://yes-www.org - This blog post from 2005 mainly proposed that most internet users needed the www prefix in order to recognize a URL. This is less important now that browsers have built-in searching. Most computer illiterates I know bypass the URL bar entirely.
in opposition to www
http://no-www.org/
and a miscellaneous related rant about why www should not be used as a CNAME, but only as an A RECORD.
http://member.dnsstuff.com/rc/index.php?option=com_myblog&task=view&id=62&Itemid=37
It is worth noting that you can't have CNAME and an NS record on the same (bare domain) name in DNS. So, if you use a CDN and need to set up a CNAME record for your web server, you can't do it if you are using a bare domain. You must use "www" or some other prefix.
Having said that, I prefer the look of URLs without the "www." prefix so I use a bare domain for all my sites. (I don't need a CDN.)
When I am mentioning URLs for the general public (eg. on a business card), I feel that one has to use either the www. prefix or the http:// prefix. Otherwise, just a bare domain name doesn't tell people they can necessarily type it into their browser. So, since I consider http:// an ugly wart on a business card, I do use the www. prefix there.
What a mess.
In some cases, www might indeed point to a completely separate subdomain in a large corporate environment. Especially on an internal network, having the explicit www can make split DNS easier if the Web site is hosted externally (say, at Rackspace in Texas, but everything else is in your office in Virginia.) In most cases, it doesn't matter.
The important thing is to pick one and add an IHttpModule, rewrite rule, or equivalent for your platform to permanently redirect requests from one to the other.
Having both can lead to scary certificate warrnings when switching from http to https if you don't have a wildcard certificate and forget to explicitly redirect based on your site's name (which you probably don't because you want your code to work in both dev and production, so you're using some variable populated by the server).
Much more importantly, having both accepted results in search engines seeing duplicated content--you get dinged for having duplicated content, and you get dinged because your hits are getting split across two different URIs, hurting your rankings.
actually you can use both of them. So it's better to find user your address or some. I mean actually it doesn't really matter tho :)
But putting www as a prefix is more common in public so I guess I'd prefer to use www behind it.
It's easier to type google.com than www.google.com, so give the option of both. remember, the www is just a subdomain.
Also no www is a commonplace these days, so maybe make the www.foo.com redirect to foo.com.
I think one reason is to help with search rankings so that for each page only one page is getting rankings instead of being split between two domains.
I'm not sure why the StackOVerflow team decided to use only one, but if it were me, I'd do it for simplicity. You'd have to allow for both since a lot of people type www by default or out of habit (I'm sure less "techy" people have no idea that there's a difference).
Aside from that, there used to be a difference as far as search engines were concerned and so there was concern about having either a duplicate content penalty or having link reputation split. But this has long since been handled and so isn't much of a consideration at this point.
So I'd say it's pretty much personal preference to keep things simple.
On my website, I have several html files I do not link off the main portal page. Without other people linking to them, is it possible for Jimmy Evil Hacker to find them?
If anyone accesses the pages with advanced options turned on on their Google toolbar, then the address will be sent to Google. This is the only reason I have can figure out why some pages I have are on Google.
So, the answer is yes. Ensure you have a robots.txt or even .htaccess or something.
Hidden pages are REALLY hard to find.
First, be absolutely sure that your web server does not return any default index pages ever. Use the following everywhere in your configuration and .htaccess files. There's probably something similar for IIS.
Options -Indexes
Second, make sure the file name isn't a dictionary word -- the odds of guessing a non-dictionary word fall to astronomically small. Non-zero, there's a theoretical possibility that someone, somewhere might patiently guess every possible file name until they find yours. [I hate these theoretical attacks. Yes, they exist. No, they'll never happen in your lifetime, unless you've given someone a reason to search for your hidden content.]
Your talking about security through obscurity (google it) and it's never a good idea to rely on it.
Yes, it is.
It's unlikely they will be found, but still a possibility.
The term "security through obscurity" comes to mind