ius-community team mailing list archive

[BJ Dierkes <derks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds good.  I hadn’t realized that it wasn’t using sockets by default, in which case having phpXXu-fpm create it’s own user would make the most sense.

---
BJ Dierkes
Data Folk Labs, LLC

From: Carl George <carl.george@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply: Carl George <carl.george@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: September 12, 2014 at 9:43:34 AM
To: ius-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ius-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject:  Re: [Ius-community] RFC IUS php 5.6 FPM  

I think the best solution is to just use a dedicated php-fpm user. The default configuration is to listen on a tcp port, so the user doesn't matter. If you change the config to use a unix socket, then just add the webserver user to the php-fpm group.  

Advantages:  
* works out of the box  
* easy to maintain  
* simple to explain  
* package names don't diverge from the stock layout  

Disadvantages:  
* ?  

- Carl  

________________________________________  
From: Ius-community [ius-community-bounces+carl.george=rackspace.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Ben Harper [ben.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]  
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 05:22 PM  
To: ius-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
Subject: Re: [Ius-community] RFC IUS php 5.6 FPM  

On 09/08/2014 04:04 PM, Ben Harper wrote:  
> Greetings,  
>  
> The initial build of IUS php56u packages will be hitting the testing  
> repo tonight for Red Hat and CentOS 7. We would like some input on  
> how to handle the FPM package. Historically Red Hat and IUS packages  
> have taken approach that FPM would be used with Red Hat's default web  
> server, Apache. With the popularity of Nginx and other web servers,  
> we want to reevaluate this approach.  
>  
> Up until recently, the main php package (php54 and php55u) required  
> Apache for mod_php and the php FPM logs were owned by the apache  
> user. Since both php54 and php55u had been in the stable repos for  
> some time, we were very cautious about making changes. We removed the  
> requirement for Apache, but kept the logs owned by the apache user[0].  
>  
> Seeing that php56u is a brand new package, we can afford to completely  
> rethink how we handle php FPM. We could follow Red Hat lead and  
> assume FPM will be used with Apache. We could also do what we did  
> with php53u and php54. Another option would be not to require Apache  
> and have the logs owned by a new user like http, php, php-fpm or some  
> other user. Are there other ideas we should consider?  
>  
> Thanks,  
> Ben and the rest of the IUS covedev team  
>  
> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ius/+bug/1312972  
>  
> _______________________________________________  
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ius-community  
> Post to : ius-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ius-community  
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp  

BJ had an interesting idea in #iuscommunity. His idea was to have a  
dedicate package for FPM and Nginx, something like php56u-fpm-nginx.  
The php56u and php56u-fpm would continue to use Apache, while the  
php56u-fpm-nginx would be set up to work with Ngnix. I think this idea  
is worthy of consideration.  

-Ben  

_______________________________________________  
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ius-community  
Post to : ius-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ius-community  
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp  

_______________________________________________  
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ius-community  
Post to : ius-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ius-community  
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp