Search Results

Search found 47251 results on 1891 pages for 'web storage'.

Page 574/1891 | < Previous Page | 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581  | Next Page >

  • Is it possible to rsync your web site to another backup server and use the same .htaccess files?

    - by stephenmm
    I am trying to use rsync to replicate all the files from one web server to another server that could act as a backup if the first one went down. The problem I am having is that the .htaccess file requires the AuthUserFile to have the fully quallified path to the .htpasswd file and I cannot make the paths the same on the two machines. Does anyone know how I might use the same .htaccess file on two different servers? Thanks for any help that can be provided.

    Read the article

  • Why assign write and execute permissions to a group when executing web scripts?

    - by PeanutsMonkey
    If I have a script that is to be executed by the nobody user, why is there a need to assign group write and execute permissions. For example in the article at http://www.zzee.com/solutions/unix-permissions.shtml, it notes that the permission 755 should be assigned to scripts on a web server. I understand that the user nobody is treated as others and as the owner of the script I would like full permissions. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Do I still need to send the "Expires" header, or can I assume that web caches understand "Cache-Cont

    - by chris_l
    I want to reduce the overhead caused by HTTP headers to a minimum, so I'd like to avoid the "Expires" header, and use "Cache-Control" only - or maybe the other way around (I'm planning to send very short HTTP responses to browsers, so the answer to this question doesn't fully apply here: My headers account for a significant percentage). AFAIK, the "Cache-Control" header was standardized in HTTP 1.1, but are there still web caches/proxies, that don't understand it? Note: This is a sub-question to my stackoverflow (bounty) question

    Read the article

  • How to block bittorrent but allow web surfing using ISA Server?

    - by nray
    Given a public WiFi hotspot behind an ISA Sever and a single Internet address, which rules or content filters would be useful to achieve this configuration? Allow anonymous users to surf the web, chat over IM, and connect to their diffrent workplace VPNs Restrict Bittorrent and other P2P clients from attracting the attention of MediaSentry and others.

    Read the article

  • How to get code of different version of a web application build on tfs 2008 server.

    - by CHAMPION
    Hi, I have been created a web project on tfs server and set a build for this application, which builds the application daily. i want to give a specific version of build to testing team, but if that version was build successfully before two or three days, how can i get the source code of that particular build which was build successfully a few days before. Thanks and regards CHAMPION

    Read the article

  • Why web application on https stops working after windows update?

    - by Rychu
    On Windows Server 2008 R2 I have several web applications on IIS7. One of these applications has https binding with SSL certificate. However after every windows update this one application stops working. Browser says that server is unavailable. It starts working again when I simply open IIS manager, select that https binding, click edit and without changing anything click OK. Why is this happening?

    Read the article

  • Windows and SQL Azure Best Practices: Affinity Groups

    - by BuckWoody
    When you create a Windows Azure application, you’ll pick a subscription to put it under. This is a billing container - underneath that, you’ll deploy a Hosted Service. That holds the Web and Worker Roles that you’ll deploy for your applications. along side that, you use the Storage Account to create storage for the application. (In some cases, you might choose to use only storage or Roles - the info here applies anyway) As you are setting up your environment, you’re asked to pick a “region” where your application will run. If you choose a Region, you’ll be asked where to put the Roles. You’re given choices like Asia, North America and so on. This is where the hardware that physically runs your code lives. We have lots of fault domains, power considerations and so on to keep that set of datacenters running, but keep in mind that this is where the application lives. You also get this selection for Storage Accounts. When you make new storage, it’s a best practice to put it where your computing is. This makes the shortest path from the code to the data, and then back out to the user. One of the selections for the location is “Anywhere U.S.”. This selection might be interpreted to mean that we will bias towards keeping the data and the code together, but that may not be the case. There is a specific abstraction we created for just that purpose: Affinity Groups. An Affinity Group is simply a name you can use to tie together resources. You can do this in two places - when you’re creating the Hosted Service (shown above) and on it’s own tree item on the left, called “Affinity Groups”. When you select either of those actions, You’re presented with a dialog box that allows you to specify a name, and then the Region that  names ties the resources to. Now you can select that Affinity Group just as if it were a Region, and your code and data will stay together. That helps with keeping the performance high. Official Documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh531560.aspx

    Read the article

  • NoSQL is not about object databases

    - by Bertrand Le Roy
    NoSQL as a movement is an interesting beast. I kinda like that it’s negatively defined (I happen to belong myself to at least one other such a-community). It’s not in its roots about proposing one specific new silver bullet to kill an old problem. it’s about challenging the consensus. Actually, blindly and systematically replacing relational databases with object databases would just replace one set of issues with another. No, the point is to recognize that relational databases are not a universal answer -although they have been used as one for so long- and recognize instead that there’s a whole spectrum of data storage solutions out there. Why is it so hard to recognize, by the way? You are already using some of those other data storage solutions every day. Let me cite a few: The file system Active Directory XML / JSON documents The Web e-mail Logs Excel files EXIF blobs in your photos Relational databases And yes, object databases It’s just a fact of modern life. Notice by the way that most of the data that you use every day is unstructured and thus mostly unsuitable for relational storage. It really is more a matter of recognizing it: you are already doing NoSQL. So what happens when for any reason you need to simultaneously query two or more of these heterogeneous data stores? Well, you build an index of sorts combining them, and that’s what you query instead. Of course, there’s not much distance to travel from that to realizing that querying is better done when completely separated from storage. So why am I writing about this today? Well, that’s something I’ve been giving lots of thought, on and off, over the last ten years. When I built my first CMS all that time ago, one of the main problems my customers were facing was to manage and make sense of the mountain of unstructured data that was constituting most of their business. The central entity of that system was the file system because we were dealing with lots of Word documents, PDFs, OCR’d articles, photos and static web pages. We could have stored all that in SQL Server. It would have worked. Ew. I’m so glad we didn’t. Today, I’m working on Orchard (another CMS ;). It’s a pretty young project but already one of the questions we get the most is how to integrate existing data. One of the ideas I’ll be trying hard to sell to the rest of the team in the next few months is to completely split the querying from the storage. Not only does this provide great opportunities for performance optimizations, it gives you homogeneous access to heterogeneous and existing data sources. For free.

    Read the article

  • Link instead of Attaching

    - by Daniel Moth
    With email storage not being an issue in many companies (I think I currently have 25GB of storage on my email account, I don’t even think about storage), this encourages bad behaviors such as liberally attaching office documents to emails instead of sharing a link to the document in SharePoint or SkyDrive or some file share etc. Attaching a file admittedly has its usage scenarios too, but it should not be the default. I thought I'd list the reasons why sharing a link can be better than attaching files directly. In no particular order: Better Review. It allows multiple recipients to review the file and their comments are aggregated into a single document. The alternative is everyone having to detach the document, add their comments, then send back to you, and then you have to collate. Wirth the alternative, you also potentially miss out on recipients reading comments from other recipients. Always up to date. The attachment becomes a fork instead of an always up to date document. For example, you send the email on Thursday, I only open it on Tuesday: between those days you could have made updates that now I am missing because you decided to share a link instead of an attachment. Better bookmarking. When I need to find that document you shared, you are forcing me to search through my email (I may not even be running outlook), instead of opening the link which I have bookmarked in my browser or my collection of links in my OneNote or from the recent/pinned links of the office app on my task bar, etc. Can control access. If someone accidentally or naively forwards your link to someone outside your group/org who you’d prefer not to have access to it, the location of the document can be protected with specific access control. Can add more recipients. If someone adds people to the email thread in outlook, your attachment doesn't get re-attached - instead, the person added is left without the attachment unless someone remembers to re-attach it. If it was a link, they are immediately caught up without further actions. Enable Discovery. If you put it on a share, I may be able to discover other cool stuff that lives alongside that document. Save on storage. So this doesn't apply to me given my opening statement, but if in your company you do have such limitations, attaching files eats up storage on all recipients accounts and will also get "lost" when those people archive email (and lose completely at some point if they follow the company retention policy). Like I said, attachments do have their place, but they should be an explicit choice for explicit reasons rather than the default. Comments about this post by Daniel Moth welcome at the original blog.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581  | Next Page >