1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by s.. » Mon, 02 Dec 1996 04:00:00



I have a requirement to run  at least 1000 small to medium size web
sites, each with their own ip.  
Would it be a good idea to put everything on one box (eg. Sun 3000) ?

The x000 series are quite robust and with future Solaris versions even
the CPU board and memory will be hot swappable.

How many ips can I setup on one ethernet interface? (255?)
Does each ethernet interface have to be on a different subnet?
Has anybody done this? Can you realistically do this ?
Is Netscape Enterprise or Apache upto the task?

Thanks

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Matthew Dwy » Mon, 02 Dec 1996 04:00:00


: How many ips can I setup on one ethernet interface? (255?)
: Does each ethernet interface have to be on a different subnet?
: Has anybody done this? Can you realistically do this ?
: Is Netscape Enterprise or Apache upto the task?

: Thanks

255 is the limit per interface on Solaris 2.5. Sun makes a 4 port ethernet
card which will allow you 1024 IP aliases. We run Netscape and Apache
servers with IPs from the same subnet on the same interface with no problems.
We also run an Apache server which supports it's own virtual web hosting
without the need for IP aliasing. However, Lynx and older versions of
Mosaic/Netscape do not work well with it.. making it a limited feature.

Matthew Dwyer
Sr. System Administrator
Dreamscape Online

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Alexei Rodrigue » Wed, 04 Dec 1996 04:00:00



> : How many ips can I setup on one ethernet interface? (255?)
> : Does each ethernet interface have to be on a different subnet?
> : Has anybody done this? Can you realistically do this ?
> : Is Netscape Enterprise or Apache upto the task?

> 255 is the limit per interface on Solaris 2.5. Sun makes a 4 port ethernet
> card which will allow you 1024 IP aliases. We run Netscape and Apache
> servers with IPs from the same subnet on the same interface with no problems.
> We also run an Apache server which supports it's own virtual web hosting
> without the need for IP aliasing. However, Lynx and older versions of
> Mosaic/Netscape do not work well with it.. making it a limited feature.

Under Solaris, you are bound to 255 per interface. Some folks have
talked about binding
to the ppp interfaces with 255 each. This may or may not work. The folks
I have
spoken with say it does.

The Apache virtual hosting relies on the client being http 1.1 compliant
(or was that 1.0?).
Thus you can use it but there may be alot of unhappy folks.

AIX boxes do not have this limit. They can go to about 32,000. This is
the theoretical
limit. Memory and speed are the limiting factors.

Hope this helps.

Alexei

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Lamar Ha » Sat, 07 Dec 1996 04:00:00




:>
:> : How many ips can I setup on one ethernet interface? (255?)
:> : Does each ethernet interface have to be on a different subnet?
:> : Has anybody done this? Can you realistically do this ?
:> : Is Netscape Enterprise or Apache upto the task?
:>
:> 255 is the limit per interface on Solaris 2.5. Sun makes a 4 port ethernet
:> card which will allow you 1024 IP aliases. We run Netscape and Apache
:> servers with IPs from the same subnet on the same interface with no
problems.
:> We also run an Apache server which supports it's own virtual web hosting
:> without the need for IP aliasing. However, Lynx and older versions of
:> Mosaic/Netscape do not work well with it.. making it a limited feature.
:
:
:Under Solaris, you are bound to 255 per interface. Some folks have
:talked about binding
:to the ppp interfaces with 255 each. This may or may not work. The folks
:I have
:spoken with say it does.

You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
with no additional hardware/setup.

Lamar

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Shane Sigl » Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:00:00






>:>
>:> : How many ips can I setup on one ethernet interface? (255?)
>:> : Does each ethernet interface have to be on a different subnet?
>:> : Has anybody done this? Can you realistically do this ?
>:> : Is Netscape Enterprise or Apache upto the task?
>:>
>:> 255 is the limit per interface on Solaris 2.5. Sun makes a 4 port ethernet
>:> card which will allow you 1024 IP aliases. We run Netscape and Apache
>:> servers with IPs from the same subnet on the same interface with no
>problems.
>:> We also run an Apache server which supports it's own virtual web hosting
>:> without the need for IP aliasing. However, Lynx and older versions of
>:> Mosaic/Netscape do not work well with it.. making it a limited feature.
>:
>:
>:Under Solaris, you are bound to 255 per interface. Some folks have
>:talked about binding
>:to the ppp interfaces with 255 each. This may or may not work. The folks
>:I have
>:spoken with say it does.

>You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
>with no additional hardware/setup.

>Lamar

The Solaris Internet Server Supplement (SISS 1.0) will allow you to have
up to 8192 per interface.

For more information on SISS, please see
http://www.sun.com/sunsoft/products/siss/index.html

I would also be interested in hearing how many people think that they
still need more than this per interface, and why more people are using
the features that say Apache has to do this without using lots of
virtual IPs. Also are there really that many people still using
lynx and older versions of Mosaic/Netscape?

Shane Sigler
SunSoft Internet Engineering, Web Performance

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Mike Harrels » Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:00:00








>>:>
>>:> : How many ips can I setup on one ethernet interface? (255?)
>>:> : Does each ethernet interface have to be on a different subnet?
>>:> : Has anybody done this? Can you realistically do this ?
>>:> : Is Netscape Enterprise or Apache upto the task?
>>:>
>>:> 255 is the limit per interface on Solaris 2.5. Sun makes a 4 port ethernet
>>:> card which will allow you 1024 IP aliases. We run Netscape and Apache
>>:> servers with IPs from the same subnet on the same interface with no
>>problems.
>>:> We also run an Apache server which supports it's own virtual web hosting
>>:> without the need for IP aliasing. However, Lynx and older versions of
>>:> Mosaic/Netscape do not work well with it.. making it a limited feature.
>>:
>>:
>>:Under Solaris, you are bound to 255 per interface. Some folks have
>>:talked about binding
>>:to the ppp interfaces with 255 each. This may or may not work. The folks
>>:I have
>>:spoken with say it does.

>>You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
>>with no additional hardware/setup.

>>Lamar

>The Solaris Internet Server Supplement (SISS 1.0) will allow you to have
>up to 8192 per interface.

Our Sun rep said  the 255 limit is built into the kernel for 2.5 and up
including the SISS.

Quote:>For more information on SISS, please see
>http://www.sun.com/sunsoft/products/siss/index.html

Is that http://www.sun.com/sunsoft/solaris/products/siss/index.html?

Quote:>I would also be interested in hearing how many people think that they
>still need more than this per interface.

We need more than 255 because we are in the Web serving business.  We have
over 4000 customers (and growing) and are currently using 20+ Sparc 5s
for web serving.  We add about 2-3 new servers per month.  It is becoming
too big of a problem to manage so many machines.

Quote:>And why more people are using
>the features that say Apache has to do this without using lots of
>virtual IPs. Also are there really that many people still using
>lynx and older versions of Mosaic/Netscape?

If memory serves, Lynx 2.5 and up support virtual hosts w/o IPs, but there
are still plenty of 2.3 and 2.4 Lynxes being used out there, as well as
others(mosiac, netscape 1.x, EI 2.x, etc.).

--mikeh

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Wonko the Sa » Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

>virtual IPs. Also are there really that many people still using
>lynx and older versions of Mosaic/Netscape?

lynx is my web browser of choice.  unless i really need graphics (which i
seldom do, i'm one of the text-guy leftovers from the pre-commercial
internet) i use lynx before netscape

-wonko

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Peter J Nayl » Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:00:00




<well, Lamar wrote the first part actually...>

Quote:>>>You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
>>>with no additional hardware/setup.

Hmmm, now that's an interesting prospect.

Quote:>>I would also be interested in hearing how many people think that they
>>still need more than this per interface.

> We need more than 255 because we are in the Web serving business.  We have
> over 4000 customers (and growing) and are currently using 20+ Sparc 5s
> for web serving.  We add about 2-3 new servers per month.  It is becoming
> too big of a problem to manage so many machines.

Okay, these numbers interest me.  Assuming a Sparc 5 with 3 Sbus slots,
each containing a quad-ethernet, that makes it capable of supporting
13*255 virtual IPs.  Over 3300 on one machine.  I don't know... but I
suspect that unless you're really cheap and don't need to provide very
much in the way of performance, 3300 virtual-hosted websites out of one
Sparc 5 is probably a little excessive.  It seems to me from your figures,
that you aren't adding extra NICs.  Indeed, the real reason you're adding
more machines might be to carry the CPU and I/O load.  I honestly think
that 255 virtual IPs per ethernet is reasonable.

Quote:>>And why more people are using
>>the features that say Apache has to do this without using lots of
>>virtual IPs. Also are there really that many people still using
>>lynx and older versions of Mosaic/Netscape?

> If memory serves, Lynx 2.5 and up support virtual hosts w/o IPs, but there
> are still plenty of 2.3 and 2.4 Lynxes being used out there, as well as
> others(mosiac, netscape 1.x, EI 2.x, etc.).

Some of the browsers currently provided by large online services are also
archaic, in this regard at least.

--
/******************************************************************
 *  From the SPARCbook of:  Peter James Naylor  ##################*
 *#######################   Partner, Supernal Technologies, Inc.  *

 ******************************************************************/

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Bob Palowo » Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:00:00





: <well, Lamar wrote the first part actually...>

: >>>You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
: >>>with no additional hardware/setup.

: Hmmm, now that's an interesting prospect.

: >>I would also be interested in hearing how many people think that they
: >>still need more than this per interface.
: >
: > We need more than 255 because we are in the Web serving business.  We have
: > over 4000 customers (and growing) and are currently using 20+ Sparc 5s
: > for web serving.  We add about 2-3 new servers per month.  It is becoming
: > too big of a problem to manage so many machines.

: Okay, these numbers interest me.  Assuming a Sparc 5 with 3 Sbus slots,
: each containing a quad-ethernet, that makes it capable of supporting
: 13*255 virtual IPs.  Over 3300 on one machine.  I don't know... but I
: suspect that unless you're really cheap and don't need to provide very
: much in the way of performance, 3300 virtual-hosted websites out of one
: Sparc 5 is probably a little excessive.  It seems to me from your figures,
: that you aren't adding extra NICs.  Indeed, the real reason you're adding
: more machines might be to carry the CPU and I/O load.  I honestly think
: that 255 virtual IPs per ethernet is reasonable.

I'm a little curious on how one would try and manage the
resources of 255 webservers on one machine.  I actually
think 255 web servers on one machine is a little excessive.
With the virtuall memory allocation, number of cgi scripts
or even the factor of all the connections that would occuring
on one machine to me if only 10 pecent of the virtual webservers
be semi-successful would cause an enourmous load.  So
how or what server software are you using to manage the load?

---Bob

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Andy Smit » Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:00:00





> <well, Lamar wrote the first part actually...>

> >>>You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
> >>>with no additional hardware/setup.

> Hmmm, now that's an interesting prospect.

> >>I would also be interested in hearing how many people think that they
> >>still need more than this per interface.

> > We need more than 255 because we are in the Web serving business.  We have
> > over 4000 customers (and growing) and are currently using 20+ Sparc 5s
> > for web serving.  We add about 2-3 new servers per month.  It is becoming
> > too big of a problem to manage so many machines.

> Okay, these numbers interest me.  Assuming a Sparc 5 with 3 Sbus slots,
> each containing a quad-ethernet, that makes it capable of supporting
> 13*255 virtual IPs.  Over 3300 on one machine.  I don't know... but I
> suspect that unless you're really cheap and don't need to provide very
> much in the way of performance, 3300 virtual-hosted websites out of one

Can someone please point me in the right direction.

I have a Toshiba Tecra with a PCMCIA 3com 3C589 Etherlink III. The
system has Solaris 2.5 installed, and I am trying to get the
Etherlink to work, but it does not seem interested.

I have tried the device as pcelx pcelx0 elx0 etc, and even running
initpcmcia before anything else.

Can someone help

Thnaks

Andy

--

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Andy Smith
Systems Security Specialist
ID/MO, Esrin                         Tel. +39 (0)6 941801 x 465
European Space Agency                Fax. +39 (0)6 94180280

00044 Frascati - Italy

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Mike Harrels » Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:00:00







>: <well, Lamar wrote the first part actually...>

>: >>>You can bind to the loopback port and get an additional 254 address per box
>: >>>with no additional hardware/setup.

>: Hmmm, now that's an interesting prospect.

>: >>I would also be interested in hearing how many people think that they
>: >>still need more than this per interface.
>: >
>: > We need more than 255 because we are in the Web serving business.  We have
>: > over 4000 customers (and growing) and are currently using 20+ Sparc 5s
>: > for web serving.  We add about 2-3 new servers per month.  It is becoming
>: > too big of a problem to manage so many machines.

>: Okay, these numbers interest me.  Assuming a Sparc 5 with 3 Sbus slots,
>: each containing a quad-ethernet, that makes it capable of supporting
>: 13*255 virtual IPs.  Over 3300 on one machine.  I don't know... but I
>: suspect that unless you're really cheap and don't need to provide very
>: much in the way of performance, 3300 virtual-hosted websites out of one
>: Sparc 5 is probably a little excessive.  It seems to me from your figures,
>: that you aren't adding extra NICs.  Indeed, the real reason you're adding
>: more machines might be to carry the CPU and I/O load.  I honestly think
>: that 255 virtual IPs per ethernet is reasonable.

The load on the machines is acceptable with 255 IPs on them.  The only
problems we have is when some customer has a bad CGI script that hangs and
eats CPU.  Other than that the machines could handle more if they had the
capability.

Most of our Sparc 5s are purchased used, with one 10mbs card and one 100mbs
card for the NFS private network.  Each one has 128MB RAM and 1 2GB drive.
Cost is about $3,000(Cheap?).

Quote:>I'm a little curious on how one would try and manage the
>resources of 255 webservers on one machine.  I actually
>think 255 web servers on one machine is a little excessive.
>With the virtuall memory allocation, number of cgi scripts
>or even the factor of all the connections that would occuring
>on one machine to me if only 10 pecent of the virtual webservers
>be semi-successful would cause an enourmous load.  So
>how or what server software are you using to manage the load?

We don't run 255 servers, only about 15-20 depending on how many hits the
machine is getting.  The load is not very high in most cases.  If it is,
then something is usually hung.

-- mikeh

 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Willard Daws » Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:00:00



>For more information on SISS, please see
>http://www.sun.com/sunsoft/products/siss/index.html

I tried, but the page does not exist, apparently.
 
 
 

1000 ips on one Box for Virtual Web Hosting

Post by Peter J Nayl » Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:00:00




Quote:

> I'm a little curious on how one would try and manage the
> resources of 255 webservers on one machine.  I actually
> think 255 web servers on one machine is a little excessive.

It could be, but that's dependent on the machine and the popularity of the
websites, along with the type of resources included in the sites
(streaming audio, large binary downloads and CGI are comparitively heavy
I'd guess).

Quote:> With the virtuall memory allocation, number of cgi scripts
> or even the factor of all the connections that would occuring
> on one machine to me if only 10 pecent of the virtual webservers
> be semi-successful would cause an enourmous load.

Yes, certainly if a fair proportion of the sites are popular, the load
would be heavy.  But the number of virtual hosts isn't the determining
factor.  Running 3 very heavy sites could be equivalent in load to 1000
low-traffic sites.  CGI is going to have a big impact on load as you said.
I never use Perl, all my CGI is done in C, and I believe that puts less
load on the system.  Since you would normally only run one instance of
your server software (but with enough forking or threading to cover all
the virtual sites), the number of virtual hosts is almost irrelevant.

One of the first problems people run up against with large numbers of
virtual hosts is the limitation on open file descriptors for the httpd
process.  If you have 2 or more log files for each virtual host, you can
quickly reach the default maximum in Solaris (but this can be worked
around).

Quote:> So
> how or what server software are you using to manage the load?

We're using Apache, and we like it a lot.  But then we're not quite up
there in the hundreds of virtual hosts yet (we're working on it ;) ).  At
the moment we're running Solaris/SPARC 2.5, but when we buy our next
machine for web-serving (this one will be for sites requiring secure
transactions) and run Netscape's server on it, I'm looking forward to
running either 2.5.1 with SISS or 2.6.  That should give a nice
performance increase...

--
/******************************************************************
 *  From the SPARCbook of:  Peter James Naylor  ##################*
 *#######################   Partner, Supernal Technologies, Inc.  *

 ******************************************************************/

 
 
 

1. Apache 1.3b2: Default Host and all virtual hosts serve only first virtual hosts pages?

Hello.

Have been running 1.2b8 for a intranet and decided to move upto 1.3b2. I
have several name based virtual hosts that have been working under
1.2b8. After compiling and installing 1.3b2 my virtual hosts do not
work. In fact what happens is that even though DocumentRoot and default
server name is different, eg: www.serverA.net pointing to /www/default,
Apache 1.3b2 will always take me to the first defined virtual host as if
it's locked to it no matter what virtual host I try to browse. What
gives? Please post and E-Mail.

In /etc/hosts for my machines IP address I have

A.B.C.D         www.default.net www.virtA.net www.virtB.net

In ../conf/httpd.conf I have;

<VirtualHost www.virtA.net>

DocumentRoot /usr/local/www/virtA
ServerName www.virtA.net
ErrorLog logs/virtA.error.log
TransferLog logs/virtA.access.log
</VirtualHost>

<VirtualHost www.virtB.net>

DocumentRoot /usr/local/www/virtB
ServerName www.virtB.net
ErrorLog logs/virtB.error.log
TransferLog logs/virtB.access.log
</VirtualHost>

--

2. system spec S/W

3. Several IPs for one Host / Box / PC

4. BIND problem

5. For Discussion: web virtual hosting vs mail virtual hosting

6. /var/log/secure Question

7. : How to prevent one named virtual host from "seeing" another virtual hosts files ?

8. : twander 3.0 Released And Available

9. Would this do for a 1000+ hosts web site?

10. HARDWARE: Would this do for a 1000+ hosts web site?

11. easiest way to move 1000 users from a Caldera box to a Redhat box

12. Slow TCP transfer from 100 megabit host to 1000 megabit host

13. Virtual interface/Virtual web hosting