ARIN Justified...

[Clayton Lambert]

There are advantages in either direction...

-Clay

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Chris
Hershey
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:23 PM
To: Virtual IP List
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...



How about about this advantage... If a customer does something via cgi, or
some other thing that crashes the pool, or a pool can otherwise not restart,
then customers outside that pool are unaffected.  When creating multiple
pools, and keeping the number of sites per pool to a limited number (say 50
to 100), you then limit the scope of such an outage.  For us, this has
prevented limited outages from becoming system-wide or machine-wide outages
on more occations than I'd care to count.  This has been a huge advantage in
our experience.  I'm sure there are numerous other advantages, some
administrative, some technical, of which I'm just not aware.
--

-Chris Hershey
hershey at easystreet.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Clayton
> Lambert
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:07 PM
> To: 'Simon'; 'Virtual IP List'
> Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> There isn't a huge advangate to running multiple daemons on the same
> box...there is only X amount of proc available regardless of the amount of
> daemons you run...Additionally, there is a per-daemon overhead
> hit (in proc)
> that you don't have to deal with when you run single daemons per server.
>
> -Clay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Simon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 4:59 PM
> To: Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
>
>
> FYI, you can't run two separate apache daemons on the same port
> without two
> unique IPs.
>
> -Simon
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:02:05 -0500, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
>
> >Simon wrote:
> >>
> >> We have servers with over 5-10 million hits and parse logs daily at
> night. It takes about 2 hours to parse the logs per
> >> machine. Mostly due to resolving IPs. To get just the bandwidth, 10
> million hits log file can be parsed in matter of
> >> minutes. So, you just need better tools ;-) As for other
> traffic such as
> FTP, there is a log file which can be parsed, too.
> >> We actually do this for anonymous FTP. I don't know who charges for
> POP/SMTP traffic, but same method can be
> >> implied here to calculate the bandwidth, too. It's matter of
> having right
> tools for the job. They are out there or you can
> >> have a programmer write custom set for your needs. Keep in mind, I'm
> referring to virtual web hosting, not dedicated.
> >>
> >
> >Attempting to parse all those different log files and consolidate the
> >info is certainly not elegant, nor a particularly great use of CPU, and
> >again, it does not tell you the actual bandwidth usage, merely the
> >application-level data.  It gets worse, when you consider that each of
> >our shared hosting customers has their own, separate web server, ftp
> >server, etc. running.  Even in shared hosting, each of our customers has
> >their own distinct server processes.  This very quickly becomes a
> >logistical nightmare, as well as a larger problem to parse.  Finally,
> >we're talking about more than double the hits you are describing.  It is
> >distinctly possible that the tool problems we're having are still
> >related to sheer volume.
> >
> >Something I didn't mention before: we also have to measure streaming
> >media bandwidth consumption.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware
> >of a way to do that from log files, for any existing streaming server.
> >--
> >
> >				     -- Bill Van Emburg
> >				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
> >Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
> >Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
> >		The eBusiness Solutions Company
> >
>
>
>