Sticky equivalent

Server NGINX
1

Hi guys,

I am running nginx 1.4 right now on a bunch of front end servers, i am
running freebsd, and have nginx with sticky patch compiled from ports.

I can’t upgrade to 1.6 or later, because the sticky port seems to be
broken. Was there any similar feature introduced in nginx, or how can we
work that one out?

Regards
Rares

2

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:24:32PM +0200, Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu
wrote:

Hi guys,

I am running nginx 1.4 right now on a bunch of front end servers, i am
running freebsd, and have nginx with sticky patch compiled from ports.

I can’t upgrade to 1.6 or later, because the sticky port seems to be
broken. Was there any similar feature introduced in nginx, or how can we
work that one out?

The latest version of nginx 1.7.2 includes the consistent hash feature
[1].
The commercial version of nginx includes the sticky functionality [2].

[1] Module ngx_http_upstream_module
[2] Module ngx_http_upstream_module

3

Dear Ruslan,

Can you post an example of using this hash feature?

Thanks in advance.

4

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:22:24AM -0300, Fabiano Furtado Pessoa Coelho
wrote:

Dear Ruslan,

Can you post an example of using this hash feature?

Thanks in advance.

upstream u {
 hash $binary_remote_addr consistent;

server 10.0.0.1;
server 10.0.0.2;
server 10.0.0.3;
}

You can use any expression as the “key”, e.g.

hash $cookie_uid consistent;

It all depends on your needs actually.

5

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 08:46:04PM +0200, Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu
wrote:

Oh god 1350$

Consistent hash is free of charge, it’s in open source version.

server 10.0.0.2;

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:24:32PM +0200, Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu wrote:

nginx Info Page

–
Ruslan E.

6

Oh god 1350$

7

Am 18-06-2014 20:46, schrieb Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu:

Oh god 1350$

Per year.

It’s cheap compared to some other commercial Servers, from my point of
view.

8

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Aleksandar L. [email protected]
wrote:

​… and it is expensive compared to the open-source Apache.​

​nginx as FOSS is great.
nginx Plus is worth as much as other commercial/closed-source
products.​…

Well.
The ‘sticky’ property is out of scope of this ML since not part of the
FOSS
nginx.
End of discussion.

The docs are already polluted with mentions of the commercial product
since, surprisingly, nginx Plus docs have not been separated from nginx
FOSS ones. On a personal stance, I would like not to see this ML
polluted
with discussions on nginx Plus.
​

B. R.

9

Dear B. R.

Am 20-06-2014 07:10, schrieb B.R.:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Aleksandar L. [email protected]
wrote:

Am 18-06-2014 20:46, schrieb Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu:
Oh god 1350$

Per year.

It’s cheap compared to some other commercial Servers, from my point of
view.

​ … and it is expensive compared to the open-source Apache.​

No comment.

​> nginx as FOSS is great.

Full Ack.

nginx Plus is worth as much as other commercial/closed-source
products.​…

On this point we have different opinions.

Well.
The ‘sticky’ property is out of scope of this ML since not part of the
FOSS nginx.

I haven’t seen in the past such a separation, but it’s ok for me , if
the ML-Moderators want this.

http://nginx.org/en/support.html

End of discussion.

It’s up to you and every other ML participant to answer to a post on the
ML or not.

Command not acknowledge.

Well, I’m with you that the price discussion is here wrong.

The docs are already polluted with mentions of the commercial product
since, surprisingly,
nginx Plus docs have not been separated from nginx FOSS ones.

I like to know which features are available on a SW even in the
commercial one.
That’s my point of view, of course yours could be another one.

On a personal stance, I would like not to see this ML polluted with
discussions on nginx Plus.

But may be other?
In the past I haven’t seen to much such discussions on this ML.

B. R.

Cheers
Aleks