Search results

Yes, it does. Why shouldn't it support .htaccess or what is not supported?! https://www.litespeedtech.com/products/litespeed-web-server/editions

I just did some further tests and you won't believe it... noconntimeout directive works. It was my fault. A typo in rewrite rule to limit noconnection timeout to the crawler has caused it, so I am very sorry! Ashes on my head! :(

Sorry, this is not great. Offering a CLI variant of crawler is an option, but not the one and only option. This option is intended to run in cronjob, but is only a small part of complex application with a lot of features and functions. This comment is like a knockout for LiteSpeed Enterprise...

For testing and debugging I have the crawler script extracted from main application to get it work in CLI. For this test there is no custom connection timeout in .htaccess defined. The crawler is running without interruption until script it is finished, but only in CLI! To me, it looks like...

Support for OpenLiteSpeed -> https://forum.openlitespeed.org/

Okay, but also need No CLI support.

Not yet, but is on to do list It won't bother? Can you explain that?

For testing crawler warmup the cache for other domain.

No. assets.php -> curl

FYI: QUIC is only supported by Chrome and Opera browser.

You are welcome :)

No, sorry.

QUIC is part of HTTP/3. Enable QUIC and you will get HTTP/3. If done, check at https://http3check.net/ if it works. (powered by LiteSpeed)

Has noconntimeout directive any limitation so it can't be used for $_POST?

Testcase? Hm... I try to explain... I developed a PHP based multi-threading crawler for cache warmup. It works as it should and with all options (similiar to crawler in WP cache plugin, but x-time faster). Everything is okay, but there is still a problem with connection timeout. I can set time...

@NiteWave I have tested noconntimeout and noabort directives, but it doesn't work! So what is wrong?

There is no special configuration that takes influence to TTFB, but you should enable QUIC to reduce time for SSL handshake.

As announced from Google last year Google will include Page Experience signals into Google search ranking. A good time to think about what must be done not to be punished and not to loose good rankings if a page is too slow. It is also Google's plan to "pillory" pages that are too slow if they...

You didn't read what the reported issue is about. There is nothing multiple, neither multiple cookies nor multiple values. The issue with multiple values never exist in LiteSpeed Enterprise.

Basically yes, but not in this case. This case is completely different. It is not about multiple vary values for cache vary cookie.