# Good Directive vs Bad Directives **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [April 24, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228 "2012-04-24T17:30:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Gurdipe\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/b77776/32.png) [@Gurdipe\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Gurdipe_D)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/1 "2012-04-24T17:30:46Z")
Hello fellas, I’ve read on [Pitfalls and Common Mistakes | NGINX](http://wiki.nginx.org/Pitfalls), what the different between bad and good? Any info related to this issue? Such as cpu load or mem load? ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/2 "2012-04-30T23:27:44Z")
_bump_ ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/3 "2012-05-01T19:43:58Z")
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:30:18AM -0700, antituhan wrote: Hi there, > I’ve read on [GitHub - nginxinc/nginx-wiki: ARCHIVED -- Source for the now archived NGINX Wiki section of https://www.nginx.com · GitHub](http://wiki.nginx.org/Pitfalls), what the different between bad > and good? Any info related to this issue? Such as cpu load or mem load? The short version is: if you don’t understand them, just don’t do the bad ones. The more useful information is: that’s a wiki, so what I see when I read it now may not be what you saw when you read it. And it might be different tomorrow. And I’m not going to help the archaeologists by being explicit 😉 But reading that page right now, the first item seems described as a possible configuration maintainability problem; the second item seems the same – basically “don’t repeat what you don’t need to repeat”; the third item is described as processor-inefficient; the fourth item doesn’t say why but just says “use try\_files”. Is any specific one unclear to you? ## f Francis D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 3:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/4 "2012-05-02T03:35:44Z")
Hi Francis, thanks for the response, Ok, basicly it’s just a different directive (simple and ‘crowded’ directive), isn’t it ? And it doesn’t matter with cpu/mem load (such as we simply could use “try\_files” than “if”). So, the conclusion is that “if” directive is same as “try\_files”, the different is only on the simplicity, and it’s not causing cpu/mem high load, right? ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/5 "2012-05-02T03:47:28Z")
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 18:34 -0700, antituhan wrote: > Hi Francis, thanks for the response, > > Ok, basicly it’s just a different directive (simple and ‘crowded’ > directive), isn’t it ? And it doesn’t matter with cpu/mem load (such as we > simply could use “try\_files” than “if”). So, the conclusion is that “if” > directive is same as “try\_files”, the different is only on the simplicity, > and it’s not causing cpu/mem high load, right? > **[GitHub - nginxinc/nginx-wiki: ARCHIVED -- Source for the now archived NGINX Wiki...](https://github.com/nginxinc/nginx-wiki)** > > ARCHIVED -- Source for the now archived NGINX Wiki section of https://www.nginx.com Cliff ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/6 "2012-05-03T15:04:35Z")
Ok thanks francis, got that point 🙂 If “try\_files” can do, we don’t need using “if”, and if “try\_files” can’t do, we just insert “if” directive (only if very needed). Isn’t it ? Francis D. wrote ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 1:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/7 "2012-05-02T13:38:23Z")
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 06:34:57PM -0700, antituhan wrote: Hi there, > Ok, basicly it’s just a different directive (simple and ‘crowded’ > directive), isn’t it ? It’s a different directive, that does different things. > So, the conclusion is that “if” > directive is same as “try\_files”, the different is only on the simplicity, > and it’s not causing cpu/mem high load, right? “if” can do a lot more than try\_files, but has its own pitfalls when used within location{}. If what you want is “if this file exists, process it; otherwise do this other thing”, that is what try\_files is for. ## f Francis D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ---
**Author:** ![antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@antituhan](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/antituhan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/good-directive-vs-bad-directives/219228/8 "2012-05-04T00:27:37Z")
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 06:04:07AM -0700, antituhan wrote: Hi there, > Ok thanks francis, got that point 🙂 If “try\_files” can do, we don’t need > using “if”, and if “try\_files” can’t do, we just insert “if” directive (only > if very needed). Isn’t it ? More or less, yes. Use the right tool for the task. Sometimes try\_files is the right one, sometimes it isn’t. ## f Francis D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)