Re:Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive
by lmilcin on Friday July 03, 2020 @03:06AM
(#23721714)
I have been sysadmin at that time.
Usually, HTTP servers would be huge bloats of configuration running on huge machines. As a sysadmin, it was not typically feasible to replicate the configuration on the local machine.
With a static website nobody would figure you can accidentally actually do something harmful to the website. The worst thing that could happen was that you made a configuration error in which case you just rolled back the config.
Of course we were supposed to have backups in case the server failed. While the servers would typically use RAID arrays we knew it would not save against rm -fr so there was a backup but backups rarely could be restored instantly.
Re:Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive
by aflag on Friday July 03, 2020 @01:52PM
(#23725992)
Interesting. I never thought it was so complicated to run the http server. What was the bottleneck that prevented them from running locally? The memory used by all the config?
Re:Space Jam's 1996 website is still alive
by lmilcin on Friday July 03, 2020 @05:35PM
(#23727868)
The amount of hardcoded stuff that was specific to the machine. All the domain addresses, firewall rules, etc. There was no git or ci/CD to keep everything in sync (easily).
Usually, HTTP servers would be huge bloats of configuration running on huge machines. As a sysadmin, it was not typically feasible to replicate the configuration on the local machine.
With a static website nobody would figure you can accidentally actually do something harmful to the website. The worst thing that could happen was that you made a configuration error in which case you just rolled back the config.
Of course we were supposed to have backups in case the server failed. While the servers would typically use RAID arrays we knew it would not save against rm -fr so there was a backup but backups rarely could be restored instantly.