httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Henderson <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] single webpage redirect
Date Sun, 06 May 2007 21:59:42 GMT
On 5/6/07, Dave Henderson  wrote:
> Guys,
>     I have another question.  This one is just to maintain uniformity and is
> not a must.  I adjusted the apache server that doesn't contain the user
> database (site2) to use the database at site1 by redirecting the login.html
> to  This is working just fine when people access the
> site2's apache server.  If the people use the site1 apache server, no
> redirection is required (obviously), but I would like the url to remain
> consistant between the two sites when people access the webpage.  Is there a
> way to mask the url on site1's apache server to read as
> instead of the actual server name.  I already have dns setup and working
> correctly (since site2 works fine), I would just like this to be uniform.

Just use a normal name-virtual-vhost configuration to setup as a virtual host on the site2 machine (evidently
sharing all the same configuration as site2). Then do a redirect from
the site2 virtualhost to the login virtual host, just as you did on


The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See  for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:


    The site2 is working fine and redirecting correctly.  It is site1 that contains the userdata
that I would like to "redirect".  I did try to use the redirect statement on the site1 server,
but that didn't work.  It gave me the following error:

The page isn't redirecting properly

Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way
that will never complete.

I am thinking there is an endless loop thats happening since the redirect is redirecting requests
for the login.html to go to the same computer acessing the same document.  Everytime it requests
that document, it redirects it.  I tried using a ServerAlias directive, but that didn't work
either.  Wouldn't that have accomplished the same goal as creating an entirely new virtual-vhost
in this situation?


View raw message