guideline for name-based web hosting justification
drechsau at geeks.org
Wed Sep 13 12:05:21 EDT 2000
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.
More information about the ARIN-discuss