Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86104 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2006 18:43:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Dec 2006 18:43:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 75890 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2006 18:43:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75831 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2006 18:43:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75819 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2006 18:43:25 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:43:25 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [206.190.36.83] (HELO smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.36.83) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:43:14 -0800 Received: (qmail 81538 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2006 18:42:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cal.cotef.org) (gwhulbert@rogers.com@72.140.234.123 with plain) by smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2006 18:42:50 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: V4iBRiMVM1l.vuqFHYqk.ooUsreEDSj7lIMiXQTCl1cESKVeFJ5NXmKSGviAMQ.vco1UPw9D6eKRlcEmuVx2ikaX8Zy9gWhPx383U7Ygx0ZntjIyyvtTBQvKTF18vyTVXATDiCU8u6ptDJJMJv054GTQAukPnR1AGuE- Subject: Re: Eliminating absolute paths on installation From: Guy Hulbert To: dev@httpd.apache.org In-Reply-To: <20061213163058.E5E1F43E43@ws5-1.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20061213163058.E5E1F43E43@ws5-1.us4.outblaze.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:42:52 -0500 Message-Id: <1166035372.13551.11.camel@cal.cotef.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, 2006-13-12 at 17:30 +0100, Paul Fee wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Guy Hulbert" > > > > Why do they need more than one ? > Hi Guy, > > The main motivation is that I don't want to dictate install location to people that are using > my builds of httpd. But you still have to dictate the platform: CPU, OS and OS version. /usr/local, /opt, or /srv are standard places to add software. > > Secondly, I have multiple people testing httpd and my module. I want to increase machine utilisation > and allow multiple installations on one box. It may be possible to arrange that they share a common > httpd but ideally each installation would be self contained. > For example different httpd versions may be built with different options. Debian builds almost all the modules dynamically loadable. You could still run multiple copies with different modules loaded. > > The only conflicting resource that different instances must avoid contention over should be the TCP port > that httpd listens on. Exactly. Apache has a built-in mechanism (virtual hosts) to multiplex this resource. If you enable htaccess (not recommended -- see apache.org -- but the issue is worse for your scenario) then different features can be enabled by the end users ... or you can use 'include' and let them configure things themselves. > > Another scenario would be a httpd server in active service and the need to install a new version > (in a different directory) for testing without removing the active version. It would be good if > httpd had the option to be built without advanced knowledge of its install location. Other people responded with generic solutions to this as I expected they might. > > Without eliminating absolute paths, I find myself heading down the path of OS visualisation, which > to me seems very heavy weight to install multiple instances of one application. Apache is a pretty heavy application. Xen still requires multiple IP addresses but RAM and DISK are *cheap* and modern CPUs are *fast*. > > Thanks, > Paul -- --gh