httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From cli...@steam.com (Cliff Skolnick)
Subject Re: Virtual Hosts patch
Date Sun, 09 Apr 1995 08:00:11 GMT
On Apr 9,  3:43pm, David Robinson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Virtual Hosts patch
} >Why don't I run seperate httpds?  I did for a while.  Think about
} >when non-forking is standard?  You want n*m processes or just m? (n
} >is number of virtual hosts, m is number of children)?  I'd
} >prefer m by a long shot.
} But why would m be the same in both cases? I'd change m to m/n so that the
} total number of processes are the same.

For the simple case sure, you can do that.  But one of the httpds
I run has 4 virtual hosts now, and I expect 15-20 in a couple
months.  I'd like to be able to set a value of m that is less than
n in that case.  It is much more versitile than the httpd per IP address.

BTW running seperate servers aso has the IP address problem you
mentioned for virtual hosts.  The name and number thing are the
same, I don't see why you prefer a number thinking about it more.
This is an advanced feature, like content negotiation.  And
yes, you can hang yourself.  I guess people will get the
idea when the config or bind fails with a message.

Mime
View raw message