NYTimes NOT hacked.

[elleng]

Last edited Thu Mar 30, 2017, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

[still_one]

1. come on Ellen, what is the context or background?

[elleng]

4. NYTimes is not loading for me,

message: 503 Backend unhealthy.

[still_one]

9. it is loading for me. You might try a different browser, computer, or google

"503 Backend Unhealthy to see what it says

[elleng]

10. Thanks. It's back.

[still_one]

11. good, but curious what happened

[elleng]

13. Ditto.

[blogslut]

2. Looks okay to me.

Mind you, I don't have a subscription but the main page loads fine for me. I am using a script blocker that's currently blocking about 9 scripts so there's that.

[elleng]

3. Thanks.

I have a subscription AND page is not loading for me, I get a message '503 Backend is unhealthy.'

[blogslut]

5. Probably temporary.

503 Backend is unhealthy:

Error 503 is a reference to HTTP status codes.
All errors that begin with 5 are errors within the server itself. In this case it is 'Service Unavailable'

The service you are trying to use is set up to use a 'frontend' caching server.

The thing you have asked to see is not available in the cache, so varnish has to go and talk to the real server which is temporarily unavailable.

It is similar to going to a store and asking to buy an item.
If they have it on the shelf they will sell it to you there and then otherwise they will have to go into the back room and find one.

While they are in the back room they do the smart thing and bring back extra items to place on the shelf. This means that anyone that comes along after you and asks for the same thing can buy it without the wait.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-Error-503-Backend-fetch-failed-mean-and-why-would-it-appear

[elleng]

6. Thanks.

[splat]

7. Video, ads not loading, but that doesn't mean it's hacked

All sorts of internal snafus can do that. Not loading doesn't usually mean hacked -- wacko unexpected news would mean hacked!

[dooner]

8. loads fine for me

[bathroommonkey76]

12. FAKE NEWS! lol

[Lee-Lee]

14. Please don't change titles like this with zero context and zero explanation in the body of your post

You just waste the time of everyone else who sees the title, wonders what it means and has to waste time deciphering what the heck is going on from the responses.

Try to be considerate and just make an edit that explains the change like "false alarm, NYT not hacked just my computer" or something so people don't have to see a puzzling thread title and then waste time trying to figure out what in the world you mean. Or at least explain it in the body of your text. I opened this thread not knowing if this meant that there were actual reports the NYT was hacked or if it was a cryptic reference to them running a story that made it look like they were hacked or what else in the world was going on and with only a vague title and no text in the body of the post had to read the responses to just figure out it was someone who couldn't get a page to load so they immediately rushed off to make a post that it must be because they were hacked.

[elleng]

16. Sorry that you'll have to read the thread.