httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: NameVirtualHost
Date Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:54:46 GMT

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:

> The still leaves the other parameters, hostnames, ports, serverpath that
> determine the actions to take.

Those parameters cost the same if you do a linear lookup or a hashed
lookup ... so I didn't count them. 

> My point is that these big ISPs are the exception and that most people
> are far more likely to use minimal name based solutions.

I don't think they're the exception.  I think they're the reason we have
well over 600k "hosts" running apache.  Roughly half the bug reports we
receive on vhosts the user has hundreds of vhosts.  Then there were all
the bug reports of "Apache works fine with N-1 vhosts but not N" for
N=128, and 256.

> Your hashing algorithm sounds fine. Use that as a first step in the
> process - using the IP address hash to find which of the '::' style
> tables to use to narrow the search down. Most people will only have
> 1 IP address so that first stage can be skipped.

Can you repost the semantics including Brian's changes?  Your original
proposal involved weighting and such which did not look easily hasheable
to me. 

Are you convinced that your "Service" directive is more intuitive than my
nested directives?  I'm not.  Mine explicitly show the user that there is
an ordering to comparisons -- ports first, then ip address, then hostname,
then server path.  Yours hides that in some weighting system.  vhost
lookup should be an exact science... and I don't get that feeling from
your first proposal...


View raw message