Spike in "more than max_user_connections" errors

[RixStix]

I may be out of my league here but isn't that addressed automatically by 'throttling' parameters if your webserver is using LiteSpeed instead of Apache?

[lloyd_borrett]

We implemented the list in the thread https://www.zen-cart.com/showthread....sive-Log-Files

order allow,deny
deny from 178.159.37.39
deny from 178.159.37.97
deny from 220.243.135.0-220.243.135.255
deny from 220.243.136.0-220.243.136.255
deny from 5.8.47.0/24
deny from 41.96.0.0/12
deny from 52.80.0.0/14
deny from 54.222.0.0/15
deny from 123.112.0.0/12
deny from 139.217.0.0/16
deny from 203.0.0.0/8
deny from 220.0.0.0/8
deny from 69.60.110.96
deny from 125.167.176.107
deny from 41.224.15.54
deny from 86.80.54.58
deny from 199.66.200.42
allow from all

But the lines...

deny from 203.0.0.0/8
deny from 220.0.0.0/8

blocked users from some major ISPs here in Australia.

[carlwhat]

I may be out of my league here but isn't that addressed automatically by 'throttling' parameters if your webserver is using LiteSpeed instead of Apache?

all due respect. i agree that you may be out of your league....

in addition, i think blocking IP addresses is a never ending battle. and one fraught with the potential to block potential customers, as indicated by the comment from @lloyd_borrett.

having a host with the necessary resources to handle spikes in traffic caused by bots, spiders, and the like is truly the only way to go IMO. not all of these bots are nefarious....

the limited research i have done on litespeed indicates that it "may" be a solution... however, unless you are doing sysadmin work, i think choosing a hosting company/plan that can serve up your pages effectively during spikes in traffic is a better methodology than looking for a specific type of web server.... unless you are hosted on windows server.... in which case, DUMP IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

best.

[RixStix]

all due respect. i agree that you may be out of your league....

in addition, i think blocking IP addresses is a never ending battle. and one fraught with the potential to block potential customers, as indicated by the comment from @lloyd_borrett.

having a host with the necessary resources to handle spikes in traffic caused by bots, spiders, and the like is truly the only way to go IMO. not all of these bots are nefarious....

the limited research i have done on litespeed indicates that it "may" be a solution... however, unless you are doing sysadmin work, i think choosing a hosting company/plan that can serve up your pages effectively during spikes in traffic is a better methodology than looking for a specific type of web server.... unless you are hosted on windows server.... in which case, DUMP IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

best.

The basis for my comment was that for the 4 weeks we used LiteSpeed, we didnt see the issue. When we switched back to apache, we had to block similar ip ranges.

The only reason for switching back to apache was due to not being able to pass a pci scan with litespeed enabled.

But yes, other than that observation, others like you are much more knowledgeable. TNX for all the knowledge shared.