guideline for name-based web hosting justification

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:57:12PM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:36:04AM -0500, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > Well, up his numbers by a full factor and you will see it is again not
> > feasible.
> 
> Any well designed system would be O(n) where n=number of named-vhosts.
> 
> Presumably, you already use a linear scaling function sourced in the
> number of customers you have.

I think you didn't read my whole message...

> > And requires even more hacking and more CPU power to manage, continue.
> 
> Apache already has a log module that permits user definable format.
> 
> It can be easily modifed to operate as Alec suggests without the negative
> impacts you fortell.

Already modded but we need more data than what Alec suggested.

> > But why not put all dialups behind NAT, I mean, hell, fuck'em, they
> > don't need to play games on the 'net, do Netmeeting, ICQ and such, and
> > this would save me a couple thousand IPs and would save UUNET (and
> > other big boys) /14s and more of IP space.
> 
> No, that would be clearly wrong.
> 
> But on the other hand, dynamic addressing on dialup isn't.

So...we should create dynamic addressing for virtual hosting?

-- 
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.