guideline for name-based web hosting justification

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:08:38AM -0700, Jon Rust wrote:
> You're bending the truth here, quite a bit actually. The HTTP 1.0 proto
> may not support the Host: header, but browsers that are using HTTP 1.0
> may very well support he Host: header. Oh, i don't know, a smallish
> browser called Netscape, v 2.0 or better, comes to mind. Grepping
> through my access log for today I see over 65,000 1.0 requests. 98% of
> those are to name-based virtual hosts (which is almost all i run
> anymore), and they all worked.

That is an excellent point.  One that isn't lost upon any of us I
don't think.

But my counter would be: If you have a site doing 1/4 million hits a
day via named virtual hosts, and it takes .01 of a second...that is
2500 seconds of CPU.

Now, match that up with 10 more sites on the same cluster of that
caliber plus add in a couple more thousand sites of varying size.

Ouch.

-- 
Mike Horwath           IRC: Drechsau         drechsau at Geeks.ORG
Home: 763-540-6815  1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN  55427
Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself
through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period.