Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 18044 invoked by uid 6000); 11 Jun 1999 13:59:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 18008 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1999 13:59:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO w1.drh.net) (qmailr@209.123.159.11) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 11 Jun 1999 13:59:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 13496 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1999 13:57:43 -0000 Received: from cc917675-a.hwrd1.md.home.com (HELO delf) (@24.3.22.201) by 209.123.159.11 with SMTP; 11 Jun 1999 13:57:43 -0000 From: "David Harris" To: Subject: listen ipaddrs:80 vs *:80 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:59:10 -0400 Message-ID: <002501beb412$9430f500$0500a8c0@delf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Question kind of relating to mass hosting: How much worse is this: Listen ipaddr:80 bla bla bla repeated for each virtual host, compared to: Listen *:80 with just bla bla bla repeated for each virtual host. I understand that the first causes one socket to be opened and the second causes one socket to be opened for each virtual host. Well, this makes a larger call to select, but is this a problem? Are all those sockets eating up file descriptors? This could cause apache problems or also linux kernel problems, I guess. I've been using the first method just because it seemed easiest to get working. It works just fine with my relatively small test setups, but I'm afraid that it will not scale. Perhaps I should just setup a box with a few class C's and test it out... I assume you people running a few thousand virtual domains in a server are using the second method with a "Listen *:80". This correct? - David Harris Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services