Skip to content

NODEBB: Nginx error performance & High CPU

Solved Performance

Did this solution help you?
Did you find the suggested solution useful? Why not buy me a coffee? It's a nice gesture, and a great way to show your appreciation 💗

Related Topics
  • NodeBB socket with CloudFlare

    Unsolved Performance
    23
    1 Votes
    23 Posts
    2k Views

    @DownPW it’s your only realistic option at this stage.

  • error with v3 in browser console

    Solved Performance
    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    231 Views

    @DownPW it’s in relation to the response I provided above

  • Is nginx necessary to use?

    Moved Solved Hosting
    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    373 Views

    @Panda said in Cloudflare bot fight mode and Google search:

    Basic question again, is nginx necessary to use?

    No, but you’d need something at least to handle the inbound requests, so you could use Apache, NGINX, Caddy… (there are plenty of them, but I tend to prefer NGINX)

    @Panda said in Cloudflare bot fight mode and Google search:

    Do these two sites need to be attached to different ports, and the ports put in the DNS record?

    No. They will both use ports 80 (HTTP) and 443 (HTTPS) by default.

    @Panda said in Cloudflare bot fight mode and Google search:

    Its not currently working, but how would the domain name know which of the two sites to resolve to without more info?
    Currently it only says the IP of the whole server.

    Yes, that’s correct. Domain routing is handled (for example) at the NGINX level, so whatever you have in DNS will be presented as the hostname, and NGINX will expect a match which once received, will then be forwarded onto the relevant destination.

    As an example, in your NGINX config, you could have (at a basic level used in reverse proxy mode - obviously, the IP addresses here are redacted and replaced with fakes). We assume you have created an A record in your DNS called “proxy” which resolves to 192.206.28.1, so fully qualified, will be proxy.sudonix.org in this case.

    The web browser requests this site, which is in turn received by NGINX and matches the below config

    server { server_name proxy.sudonix.org; listen 192.206.28.1; root /home/sudonix.org/domains/proxy.sudonix.org/ogproxy; index index.php index.htm index.html; access_log /var/log/virtualmin/proxy.sudonix.org_access_log; error_log /var/log/virtualmin/proxy.sudonix.org_error_log; location / { proxy_set_header Access-Control-Allow-Origin *; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_pass http://localhost:2000; proxy_redirect off; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Api-Key $http_x_api_key; } location /images { index index.php index.htm index.html; root /home/sudonix.org/domains/proxy.sudonix.org/ogproxy; } fastcgi_split_path_info "^(.+\.php)(/.+)$"; listen 192.206.28.1:443 ssl http2; ssl_certificate /home/sudonix.org/domains/proxy.sudonix.org/ssl.combined; ssl_certificate_key /home/sudonix.org/ssl.key; }

    The important part here is server_name proxy.sudonix.org; as this is used to “map” the request to the actual domain name, which you can see in the root section as root /home/sudonix.org/domains/proxy.sudonix.org/ogproxy;

    As the DNS record you specified matches this hostname, NGINX then knows what to do with the request when it receives it.

  • Nodebb design

    Solved General
    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    282 Views

    @Panda said in Nodebb design:

    One negative is not being so good for SEO as more Server side rendered forums, if web crawlers dont run the JS to read the forum.

    From recollection, Google and Bing have the capability to read and process JS, although it’s not in the same manner as a physical person will consume content on a page. It will be seen as plain text, but will be indexed. However, it’s important to note that Yandex and Baidu will not render JS, although seeing as Google has a 90% share of the content available on the web in terms of indexing, this isn’t something you’ll likely lose sleep over.

    @Panda said in Nodebb design:

    The “write api” is preferred for server-to-server interactions.

    This is mostly based around overall security - you won’t typically want a client machine changing database elements or altering data. This is why you have “client-side” which could be DOM manipulation etc, and “server-side” which performs more complex operations as it can communicate directly with the database whereas the client cannot (and if it can, then you have a serious security flaw). Reading from the API is perfectly acceptable on the client-side, but not being able to write.

    A paradigm here would be something like SNMP. This protocol exists as a UDP (UDP is very efficient, as it is “fire and forget” and does not wait for a response like TCP does) based service which reads performance data from a remote source, thus enabling an application to parse that data for use in a monitoring application. In all cases, SNMP access should be “RO” (Read Only) and not RW (Read Write). It is completely feasible to assume complete control over a firewall for example by having RW access to SNMP and then exposing it to the entire internet with a weak passphrase.

    You wouldn’t do it (at least, I hope you wouldn’t) and the same ethic applies to server-side rendering and the execution of commands.

  • NodeBB: updating Admin details not working

    Solved Configure
    17
    3 Votes
    17 Posts
    654 Views

    @mventures Ok. No issues

  • NodeBB v3.0.0-rc.1

    Performance
    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    124 Views
    No one has replied
  • Optimum config for NodeBB under NGINX

    Performance
    4
    3 Votes
    4 Posts
    810 Views

    @crazycells hi - no security reason, or anything specific in this case. However, the nginx.conf I posted was from my Dev environment which uses this port as a way of not interfering with production.

    And yes, I use clustering on this site with three instances.

  • optional "snow falling" theme

    Solved Customisation
    6
    6 Votes
    6 Posts
    373 Views

    @Sala ok, but that’s still the same loop which is going to have an impact on the CPU.