httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Drummond" <md2...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] RE: [SPAM] - [users@httpd] application.company.com vs. www.company.com/application? - Email found in subject
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:41:03 GMT
I guess I figured that if both servers have a virtual server answering to "
bar.foo.com" then I only needed the one cert for "bar.foo.com" installed to
both hosts.

On 19/10/2007, Peter Milanese <milanesefamille@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As far as I know, no. Although, I've never really considered it.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mark Drummond <md2600@gmail.com>
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:25:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] RE: [SPAM] - [users@httpd]
> application.company.com vs. www.company.com/application? - Email found in
> subject
>
> We're a relatively small shop. We have some Cisco content switches, and
> the intent *is* to load balance across two physical boxes, but the SSL will
> be handled by the web servers themselves.
>
> Can I use the same cert on both machines?
>
> On 19/10/2007, Peter Milanese <milanesefamille@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you have the cash, front end it with some SSL Terminating load
> > balancers.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: " jmacaranas@fxdd.com" <jmacaranas@fxdd.com>
> > To: users@httpd.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:16:47 AM
> > Subject: [users@httpd] RE: [SPAM] - [users@httpd]
> > application.company.com vs. www.company.com/application? - Email found
> > in subject
> >
> >  Unless you are using the load balancer ( hardware or software ) or a
> > load balancing scheme it shouldn't matter.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Mark Drummond [mailto:md2600@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, October 19, 2007 11:09 AM
> > *To:* users@httpd.apache.org
> > *Subject:* [SPAM] - [users@httpd] application.company.com vs.
> > www.company.com/application? - Email found in subject
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have Apache sitting in front of some WebSphere app servers. So far, we
> > have always used virtual hosts in Apache to give each application it's own
> > FQDN. So we have app1.foo.com , app2.foo.com etc. This is leading to a
> > (small) proliferation of FQDNs, and now I am wondering if it is better to
> > have a single FQDN and use URIs to separate the applications. In other
> > words, going to www.foo.com/app1, www.foo.com/app2. So now I am trying
> > to figure out the pros and cons, and looking for some input on how others
> > are doing this.
> >
> > The way I see it, separate FQDNs for every application require more
> > administration. Because we are doing SSL everywhere I have to use IP based
> > virtual hosts so I'm creating new interfaces and allocating new IP addresses
> > for every new application. And then every app requires it's own certificate.
> > On the other hand, the increased separation between applications (separate
> > virtual hosts) looks good on paper, and does give me configuration
> > flexibility, separate log files etc.
> >
> > Moving to www.foo.com/app# <http://www.foo.com/app> means I only ever
> > need one certificate. Adding a new app is as easy as creating a new
> > directory under htdocs. I end up with just one log file, but that is OK
> > since awstats can filter for us.
> >
> > Any input is appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark
> >
> > --
> > Georgia: Why am I not doing what they're doing?
> > Rube: Because you're doing what you're doing. When it's time for you to
> > do something else you'll do that.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is
> > addressed. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally
> > privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
> > lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient,
> > please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system,
> > destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not,
> > directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any
> > part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.
> > FXDirectDealer, LLC reserves the right to monitor all e-mail
> > communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this
> > message are those of the individual sender, except where the
> > message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them.
> >
> > Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message
> > is indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an
> > offer to deal at any price quoted. Any reference to the terms of
> > executed transactions should be treated as preliminary only and subject
> > to our formal confirmation. FXDirectDealer, LLC is not responsible for
> > any
> > recommendation, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information
> > about any transaction, customer account or account activity contained in
> > this communication.
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Georgia: Why am I not doing what they're doing?
> Rube: Because you're doing what you're doing. When it's time for you to do
> something else you'll do that.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>



-- 
Georgia: Why am I not doing what they're doing?
Rube: Because you're doing what you're doing. When it's time for you to do
something else you'll do that.

Mime
View raw message