upper bound for virtual hosts

upper bound for virtual hosts

Post by Peppo Valett » Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:00:00



I am researching what  upper bounds there might be to the number of
virtual hosts that
can be practically handled by a single Apache installation.
I know that such a bound can be set by the max. number of file
descriptors that can be open
by a single process on my OS. This can be bypassed at least in part by
setting that number as high as possible, and by configuring Apache to
use less log files
per virtual host (in the most extreme case, I guess all logs can go
together to the same file
which is then post processed by a backoffice program - I think I read
some advice of this kind
on the apache.org site).
Say, the number of  file descriptors  is no more an issue - is there any
other practical factor
playing a role there? What is a reasonably large number of domains that
I can put on a single server,
according to literature, surveys, or Web admin lore?
Can anybody offer his/her experience?

Note: the order of magnitude I am looking for is in the thousands.
In case Apache can't handle that, is there any alternative around?

Please, Cc: to me your replies at the following address:

Cheeers.
                                                                Peppo

 
 
 

upper bound for virtual hosts

Post by Tony Finc » Fri, 01 Sep 2000 04:00:00



Quote:

>Say, the number of  file descriptors  is no more an issue - is there any
>other practical factor
>playing a role there? What is a reasonably large number of domains that
>I can put on a single server,
>according to literature, surveys, or Web admin lore?

The more data on each site or the more traffic each site gets the
fewer you can host on a given quantity of hardware. In the limit
of no content and no traffic there is no limit to the number of
vhosts you can implement on one machine.

A real-world example of this: if you are a domain registrar that wants
to provide a place-holder web site for each domain that hasn't been
fully set up yet, you can provide the same content for all the domains
and expect the number of hits to be quite low. Presto: one machine,
thousands of domains.

Tony.
--
en oeccget g mtcaa    f.a.n.finch



 
 
 

upper bound for virtual hosts

Post by Peppo Valett » Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:22:24




> >Say, the number of  file descriptors  is no more an issue - is there any
> >other practical factor
> >playing a role there? What is a reasonably large number of domains that
> >I can put on a single server,
> >according to literature, surveys, or Web admin lore?

> The more data on each site or the more traffic each site gets the
> fewer you can host on a given quantity of hardware.

Of course. I'll have to consider space and performance limits of
the underying HW and OS, but at this stage that  is not my concern.

Quote:> A real-world example of this: if you are a domain registrar that wants
> to provide a place-holder web site for each domain that hasn't been
> fully set up yet, you can provide the same content for all the domains
> and expect the number of hits to be quite low. Presto: one machine,
> thousands of domains.

Right. My situation can be equated to something like that, at least
initially.

So, are you saying that Apache can efficiently handle those thousands?
Any proof, any experience on the field by anybody in this forum?
Or instead, any hidden subtle little factor contrary to this?
Such as, for instance, loss of performance in servicing requests when
the "table" (I say table but I do not really know what data structure is
used by the Apache implementation) of virtual hosts gets quite large?

                                                Peppo

 
 
 

upper bound for virtual hosts

Post by Tony Finc » Sat, 02 Sep 2000 04:48:51




>> A real-world example of this: if you are a domain registrar that wants
>> to provide a place-holder web site for each domain that hasn't been
>> fully set up yet, you can provide the same content for all the domains
>> and expect the number of hits to be quite low. Presto: one machine,
>> thousands of domains.

>Right. My situation can be equated to something like that, at least
>initially.

>So, are you saying that Apache can efficiently handle those thousands?
>Any proof, any experience on the field by anybody in this forum?

If it is literally as simple as that you don't have to configure virtual
hosting on the server; just point all the domains at it and turn
UseCanonicalName off. If you need to vary the content per domain, use
mod_vhost_alias. If that isn't sufficiently powerful you can probably
use mod_rewrite, but I think you'd be better off simplifying your design.

Tony.
--
en oeccget g mtcaa    f.a.n.finch


 
 
 

1. Upper bound on virtual interfaces in Sol 2.5?

Hello everyone:

I am running an SS20-612 [ Solaris 2.5 ].  There are 17 virtual
hosts  associated with the physical ethernet interface.  I manually
add interfaces using ifconfig, then I echo the IP address into
/etc/hostname.le0:XX [ XX = 0, 1, .., 16] so that the system
configures the interface during the next boot.

The system seems to have no difficulty supporting these interfaces.  
However, during the most recent reboot, only 16 interfaces were
configured.  /etc/hostname.le0:16 was ignored.  

I remember reading that Solaris 2.5 supports up to 64 virtual
interfaces, so I am wondering if there is some reason why interfaces
are being ignored.

Thanks in advance for your help..

Dug Birdzell
Husky Labs

2. ISP

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

4. BEAT THE LOTTO'S ASTRONOMICAL ODDS!!!!

5. FrontPage virtual hosting, removal or reset of virtual host

6. FS: Dual PPro machine

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

8. IDE not IDE

9. Mixing Apache Name Based Virtual Hosts and SSL Virtual Host

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

11. Binding multiple IPs for Virtual Hosting on Solaris

12. bind additional ip addresses, or virtual hosts in apache

13. Increase default upper bound of socket buffer size(UDP)