|
Forever_Peace posted:Looks like it's limited to just a single page per project repository though? no - you currently have one page called index.html (look in the gh-pages branch of your repo) but you are free to create more e.g. chapter1.html
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Rufus Ping posted:no - you currently have one page called index.html (look in the gh-pages branch of your repo) but you are free to create more e.g. chapter1.html Ah, cool - thanks! Found a walkthrough that seems good (http://jmcglone.com/guides/github-pages/) along with a bbcode-to-markdown translator. This should work great. Thanks again! Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
I'm a lazy person and thus I like Heroku. However, Heroku is kind of expensive compared to something like Digital Ocean. Searching around I came across Dokku which advertises itself as being basically self-hosted Heroku. I haven't looked at it in depth yet, but...Is it any good? Any security issues? Am I going to regret using it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'm a lazy person and thus I like Heroku.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Docker's great and everything but if you're trying to literally operate your own Heroku without an entire team to manage it you're going to have a bad time Well, I'm not trying to run a whole Heroku clone, I'm looking at deployment similar to Heroku. I don't need scaling across machines or any of the stuff that makes Heroku a popular choice for growing sites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Well, I'm not trying to run a whole Heroku clone, I'm looking at deployment similar to Heroku. I don't need scaling across machines or any of the stuff that makes Heroku a popular choice for growing sites. What do you want then? Just like easy deployment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:What do you want then? Just like easy deployment? Thermopyle posted:I'm looking at deployment similar to Heroku. This isn't really an X-Y problem. I'm just looking for opinions on Dokku.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:This isn't really an X-Y problem. I'm just looking for opinions on Dokku. I hate server administration (liked it once, when I had time) but I like Dokku, it makes it easy to setup once and deploy forever without any problems if your requirements don't change and deploying works just like Heroku: "git push dokku master" and you're done. lunar detritus fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
So I'm currently using Digital Ocean for web and DNS hosting, and Fastmail for email. I've never put much thought into this because it's always just worked, but a couple months ago Digital Ocean's DNS servers went down for a couple of days (I think) and with that my email as well. I didn't really care too much about it but it's kind of a lovely situation to be in if I was looking for a job or something and had my email bounce or whatever so I'd like to avoid this in the future. I think this means I'm looking for a dedicated DNS host? I don't really know what to look for because I don't really know too much about this in general. But I have two domain names (for now), and they both mirror each other and host a small static blog with approximately zero readers. It's mostly there just as a landing page for my ~personal branding~ and what not. I only know of Amazon Route 53, HE, and CloudFlare. Couple pages back someone said HE had massive downtimes so that kinda defeats the whole purpose. CloudFlare has a free tier but what's the catch? Also I can't seem to figure out how many domain names they'll let me set up within the free tier. For Amazon Route 53 I'm using the following to estimate a monthly cost of $1.40:  Does that sound about right? 1 million queries seems like a poo poo ton to me but I could be severely missing something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Easy and Free! https://lidns.net Edit: If you need AWS features and integration, Route 53 is great. If you just need DNS that works and is easy to manage, give LiDNS a try. DarkLotus fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:So I'm currently using Digital Ocean for web and DNS hosting, and Fastmail for email. I've never put much thought into this because it's always just worked, but a couple months ago Digital Ocean's DNS servers went down for a couple of days (I think) and with that my email as well. I didn't really care too much about it but it's kind of a lovely situation to be in if I was looking for a job or something and had my email bounce or whatever so I'd like to avoid this in the future. DNS was down for a few hours, not a few days, fwiw. I'd generally recommend CloudFlare, though. There's no catches for your usage level, just no access to some of their more advanced features.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
DarkLotus posted:Easy and Free! Thanks. Seeing as I have two domain names I'll give you guys a try with one of them and CloudFlare with the other and just feel things out. I probably don't need Route 53 features at all but I'm just a bit hesitant/weary of using free services because of the whole "free means you're the product" and all. And also because I've had bad experiences with companies deciding to pull the plug on free services (RIP Google Reader, I'll never forget you). Malkar posted:DNS was down for a few hours, not a few days, fwiw. I'd generally recommend CloudFlare, though. There's no catches for your usage level, just no access to some of their more advanced features. Was it a few hours? My bad. So now I have some questions about how dns and name servers work. If I register my domain from someone I get the option to set my nameservers on the registrar's website, so I point it towards say ns1.lidns.net and ns2.lidns.net and so on. At lidns.net I set an A record pointing to 12.12.12.12 or whatever IP address my website is located at. Is it right to say that when I tell my browser to go to mydomain.com, it first pulls up the database from my registrar which says "go ask ns1.lidns.net", and then my browser goes to their database and sees that he should connect to 12.12.12.12? What happens if my registrar's database has some kind of outage? Another question that doesn't make sense to me: in my Digital Ocean dns control panel there are NS records pointing to themselves (ns1.digitalocean.com and so on). I don't remember if I put these in there or not but from searching around it seems like this is a best practice I think. What's the point of this though, since I've already set the nameservers to point to ns1.digitalocean.com at my registrar's website?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Is it right to say that when I tell my browser to go to mydomain.com, it first pulls up the database from my registrar which says "go ask ns1.lidns.net", and then my browser goes to their database and sees that he should connect to 12.12.12.12? What happens if my registrar's database has some kind of outage? My childish understanding: your registrar doesn't just store the nameserver information, it also sends that information to all the other DNS servers (propagation), so your browser actually gets the NS info from your ISP's DNS or whatever. Boris Galerkin posted:Another question that doesn't make sense to me: in my Digital Ocean dns control panel there are NS records pointing to themselves (ns1.digitalocean.com and so on). I don't remember if I put these in there or not but from searching around it seems like this is a best practice I think. What's the point of this though, since I've already set the nameservers to point to ns1.digitalocean.com at my registrar's website? I'd like an answer to this too. I never understood why DNS hosts add records for nameservers when the nameservers are set at the registrar level. My Route 53 hosted domains always have a record set for the AWS nameservers, but presumably if I edited or deleted that record nothing would happen, because I actually set the nameservers through my namecheap account?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
fuf posted:I'd like an answer to this too. I never understood why DNS hosts add records for nameservers when the nameservers are set at the registrar level. My Route 53 hosted domains always have a record set for the AWS nameservers, but presumably if I edited or deleted that record nothing would happen, because I actually set the nameservers through my namecheap account? That said, Server Fault has a really good answer for this specific question: http://serverfault.com/questions/588244/what-is-the-role-of-ns-records-at-the-apex-of-a-dns-domain
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Goons in the hosting industry, I work for an MSP and we frequently end up helping our clients support their websites which are often hosted on unmanaged or barely managed VPS instances. I've been asked to find us a contractor who has a few hours a week (after hours is fine) to help us out. Tasks would include configuring a typical LAMP stack server, making sure it's secure and making sure whatever CMS they're running is also configured properly (Wordpress etc) along with ongoing patching and updates for everything. PM me for further info.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
fuf posted:My childish understanding: your registrar doesn't just store the nameserver information, it also sends that information to all the other DNS servers (propagation), so your browser actually gets the NS info from your ISP's DNS or whatever. This propagation myth is completely incorrect. DNS servers don't propagate their records to other servers. It's a pull system, not a push system. Records are cached, and that's where the propagation myth comes from. When you query your DNS server for e.g. https://www.vnucleus.com your DNS server queries the root servers for the nameservers for .com, and retrieves the .com registry name server. From there, it queries .com for the name servers for vnucleus.com, and gets a set of Route 53 nameservers, which it then queries for https://www.vnucleus.com. At each step along the way, your DNS server caches those values for the duration of the TTL of the record in question. When a value is cached, instead of making the query, the DNS server returns the cached value. At no point in time are other DNS servers actively telling you "These are the DNS records for XYZ!" without you asking them first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Thalagyrt posted:This propagation myth is completely incorrect. DNS servers don't propagate their records to other servers. It's a pull system, not a push system. Records are cached, and that's where the propagation myth comes from. When you query your DNS server for e.g. https://www.vnucleus.com your DNS server queries the root servers for the nameservers for .com, and retrieves the .com registry name server. From there, it queries .com for the name servers for vnucleus.com, and gets a set of Route 53 nameservers, which it then queries for https://www.vnucleus.com. At each step along the way, your DNS server caches those values for the duration of the TTL of the record in question. When a value is cached, instead of making the query, the DNS server returns the cached value. At no point in time are other DNS servers actively telling you "These are the DNS records for XYZ!" without you asking them first. when i was working in webhosting it was basically "DNS records may take up to 24 hours to be fully propagated, but in some cases longer" some DNS servers (ISP ones especially from what i've seen) will cache records for >24 hours, and some don't play nice and don't respect TTL, so even if your TTL is set to 3600 some servers will just outright ignore that
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
online friend posted:when i was working in webhosting it was basically "DNS records may take up to 24 hours to be fully propagated, but in some cases longer" The best are the servers that, in addition to disobeyin TTLs also refuse requests from non-customers so you can't even verify that the DNS server is the problem. Looking at you, Cox.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Thalagyrt posted:DNS servers don't propagate their records to other servers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
online friend posted:when i was working in webhosting it was basically "DNS records may take up to 24 hours to be fully propagated, but in some cases longer" That's not propagation - that's cache expiration. The two are very different concepts. Propagation implies that the source is pushing data to consumers, whereas the reality is that the consumers are pulling data from the source upon request and caching it. Vulture Culture posted:With the exception of DNS NOTIFY/Zone Change Notifications on master/slave configurations anyway Well yeah, but your average DNS client isn't using that. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Thalagyrt posted:That's not propagation - that's cache expiration. The two are very different concepts. Propagation implies that the source is pushing data to consumers, whereas the reality is that the consumers are pulling data from the source upon request and caching it. Okay, so you want to be a little pedantic but not go all the way into technically correct territory. DNS propagation is when you change an A record and sit around taking calls from your customer about when the migration is going to be over. Whether its a super technical concept or not, thats what an end user experiences when they change an IP in their go-daddy control panel.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
/\ - What he said. Got caught up in a ticket  Thalagyrt posted:That's not propagation - that's cache expiration. The two are very different concepts. Propagation implies that the source is pushing data to consumers, whereas the reality is that the consumers are pulling data from the source upon request and caching it. That's senseless pedantry. When we refer to propagation typically we're not talking about replication among slaves. We're referring to cache expirations from local resolvers and at what point 95% of resolvers will pull the new records. Some upstream resolvers do violate prescribed TTLs, but for the most part propagation = cache, because propagation among slaves is drat near instantaneous.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
I have a bunch of client@domain.com email addresses hosted on fastmail. Their imap address is: mail.messagingengine.com. Is it possible to change the imap address to mail.domain.com and forward it on to mail.messagingengine.com? What is that called? I tried searching for "vanity imap" because I know vanity nameservers are a thing, but I couldn't find anything.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
fuf posted:I have a bunch of client@domain.com email addresses hosted on fastmail. Their imap address is: mail.messagingengine.com. If you go to your DNS settings for that domain (domain.com) you can make an MX record called 'mail.domain.com', and set the 'points to' value to mail.messagingengine.com
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:If you go to your DNS settings for that domain (domain.com) you can make an MX record called 'mail.domain.com', and set the 'points to' value to mail.messagingengine.com Hmm I'm missing something. I'm using Route 53 and the MX records are already set to: code:Could I maybe just add mail.domain.com as a CNAME record and point it at mail.messagingengine.com?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
fuf posted:
Yes - it sounds like your goal is that they can just enter mail.companyname.com into their mail client (Outlook, etc) or their phone, right? Hadn't had any coffee yet.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Yes - it sounds like your goal is that they can just enter mail.companyname.com into their mail client (Outlook, etc) or their phone, right? Hadn't had any coffee yet. Yep exactly, sorry I should have specified that. The cname record method worked fine, can't believe I didn't do this ages ago haha
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Ohh jesus, Bounceweb is back like nothing ever happened... https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3777284 Can we have the OP updated with a list of DO NOT USE THESE HOSTS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ??? It wouldn't be hard to link to reasons or posts that outline the horrors of using hosts like Bounceweb, Hytek and EIG Brands.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
mooky posted:Ohh jesus, Bounceweb is back like nothing ever happened... http://bounceweb.com/ajax-hosting.html oh my god lol this horrible keyword stuffing page that first paragraph under 'What is AJAX?'
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:http://bounceweb.com/ajax-hosting.html Last time BounceWeb was around this block, the thread turned into a shitstorm because their policies forbade ffmpeg... and sure enough the article on ffmpeg hosting is still there  . Oh well, let's see how many suckers that thread can ensnare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
A few months back, I switched hosts from Bluehost to Lithium and signed up with OVH for object storage to store my podcast's files. It's running pretty well these days, but my data usage on OVH spiked last month and there was no similar spike in traffic to my website that I can detect. OVH doesn't seem to have referrer traffic logs, nor can I detect why so many more people downloaded podcasts in May over April. Is there a way to track RSS traffic from my podcast website? Perhaps some podcatching apps mistakenly identified the entire archive as new episodes and tried to download all of it - I can't figure out how I would be able to see that though from standard traffic log analyzers like AWstats. How else can I figure out what is causing the spike in traffic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
What are the current goon-approved domain name registrars? TIA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:What are the current goon-approved domain name registrars? TIA. I've been happy with https://www.gandi.net/.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:What are the current goon-approved domain name registrars? TIA. namecheap.com still serving me well after 5 years or so, despite the embarrassing name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
GigaFuzz posted:I've been happy with https://www.gandi.net/. Seconding this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
fuf posted:namecheap.com still serving me well after 5 years or so, despite the embarrassing name. Been using them for a few years now. Moved everything over from godaddy. No complaints.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
eightysixed posted:Seconding this. thirding gandi
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Yeah, Gandi or Namecheap. I'm heavily vested in Namecheap so that's where I'm staying, but if I was starting over, it would be a coin toss; either one is top-tier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I use gandi for my important stuff, and namecheap for cheap throwaway domains for side projects, pretty much
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
thanks goons. thoons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:41
|
|