guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Mike Horwath]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 08:29:11PM -0600, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> Mury wrote:
> > 
> > Yikes!
> > 
> > Have you ever tried to parse up to 1000 log files per system, with some of
> > them around 500MB in size.  It's not nearly as easy as it sounds.
> 
> It is if you change how you write and parse your logs.

Well, up his numbers by a full factor and you will see it is again not
feasible.

> > For some people it's feasable, but for most of us we *need* IP based
> > accounting.
> > 
> > By the way, we are setup to do a large number of URL's pointed at a single
> > IP for some hosting applications, but for the majority of our sites, it is
> > not an option.
> 
> Can't say that I have tried it.  However at the same time I can
> think of quite a few ways to make the task far easier and faster.
> For example, don't do all of the parsing at once at the end of the
> day; modify the server to keep a running tally of a customer's usage
> and have it write that alone to a file on the disk every time it
> changes.  Far more efficient.

And requires even more hacking and more CPU power to manage, continue.

> That's just off the top of my head, and probably not a really
> efficient way to do it.  My point is that the Internet is made up of
> a lot of smart people who are more than capable of solving these
> issues if they feel like it.  Whining about how today's methods of
> accounting won't work with tomorrow's methods of virtual hosting is
> a lot like complaining about how yesterday's chalk writes really
> poorly on today's white boards.  If you don't want to be left behind
> you have to keep on evolving.

Thing is, 'tomorrows way of web hosting' really is tomorrow.

Or don't you get it?

> After all, where would we be today if dial-up providers decided that
> it was too much work to use dynamically allocated IP addresses and
> kept on giving each user their own IP address?

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.

> However, name-based virtual hosts aren't exactly a new thing.  Many
> large web hosters have been using name-based virtual hosts for a
> while now, so would any of those companies mind sharing a little
> wisdom on how this can be done?

Yep, it isn't new and many of us use name based virtual hosting
techniques when we can.

Thing is, it doesn't work all the time.

-- 
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.