Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Russell Berret » Tue, 17 Oct 1995 04:00:00



Want to resell or have access to your OWN server with full access to logs,
cgi-bin, and configuration?  Have you "been there, done that" with Virtual
Hosting and want to see something more substantial?  Check out
http://www.iserver.com -  .org servers are $20/month (why not have a server

servers start at $30/month.  Add Netscape compatible security to your server
for just $20/month.

Iserver provides FULL virtual WWW, FTP, POP, and e-mail services. Unlike
"virtual hosting" such as Apache servers and others, ISI's Virtual Server
System comes with its own configuration files, cgi-bin, and access logs. The
Virtual Server System also comes with 75 MB of disk space, an FTP server
(anonymous and multi-user), unlimited e-mail POP accounts and e-mail aliasing.
Furthermore, Netscape compatible encryption is also available to make your
Virtual Server transactions secure!

Our focus is selling Virutal Server Systems with the primary emphasis on volume
wholesale with recruitment of resellers. Currently, resellers are responsible
for a large part of Iserver total sales. The design of the ISI Virtual Server
System is to maximize cusomer's use, control, and design of their OWN site.
This is quite unlike "Virtual Hosting" which merely spoofs the domain name of a
company to point to a subdirectory of a server controlled by someone else. Thus
ISI's Virtual Server System is redefining the word "virtual", bringing more
control and power to the WWW market.

Warm regards,

Rus Berrett

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Kevin Mart » Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:00:00



>Iserver provides FULL virtual WWW, FTP, POP, and e-mail services. Unlike
>"virtual hosting" such as Apache servers and others,

Whoops:

% telnet www.iserver.com 80
Trying 204.212.248.99...
Connected to www.iserver.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.0 200 Document follows
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:38:18 GMT
Server: NCSA/1.4.1
Content-type: text/html

Looks like you're running the same server as everybody else out there doing
Virtual Hosting.

Quote:>ISI's Virtual Server
>System comes with its own configuration files, cgi-bin, and access logs.

Are you running one HTTPD for each virtual server to do this?  That would
be the only thing I can see that's different - and it seems awfully
inefficient for the server, with little benefit to customers.

Quote:>This is quite unlike "Virtual Hosting" which merely spoofs the domain name of a
>company to point to a subdirectory of a server controlled by someone else. Thus
>ISI's Virtual Server System is redefining the word "virtual", bringing more
>control and power to the WWW market.

I'm just curious about what basis in reality such radical claims really
have.

--

Pinball Archive: http://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/ ftp://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/pinball
Q: Why do ducks have flat feet?      A: To stamp out forest fires.
Q: Why do elephants have flat feet?  A: To stamp out flaming ducks.

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Ming Cha » Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:00:00




>Subject: Re: Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)
>Date: 17 Oct 1995 08:54:50 -0500

>>Iserver provides FULL virtual WWW, FTP, POP, and e-mail services. Unlike
>>"virtual hosting" such as Apache servers and others,
>Whoops:
>% telnet www.iserver.com 80
>Trying 204.212.248.99...
>Connected to www.iserver.com.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>HEAD / HTTP/1.0
>HTTP/1.0 200 Document follows
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:38:18 GMT
>Server: NCSA/1.4.1
>Content-type: text/html
>Looks like you're running the same server as everybody else out there doing
>Virtual Hosting.

They are not the only one. There are others who claim to be NetWare HTTPD
NLM and come out to be either NCSA or NetScape.
 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Jon Zee » Wed, 18 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>cgi-bin, and configuration?  Have you "been there, done that" with Virtual
>Hosting and want to see something more substantial?  Check out
>System comes with its own configuration files, cgi-bin, and access logs. The

We did this back in '93.  

--
   Corporate WWW Development and Hosting & the Branch Mall

(313) 741-4442  http://branch.com/              gopher branch.com

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Carl Pay » Fri, 20 Oct 1995 04:00:00




> >>Iserver provides FULL virtual WWW, FTP, POP, and e-mail services. Unlike
> >>"virtual hosting" such as Apache servers and others,
> >Looks like you're running the same server as everybody else out there doing
> >Virtual Hosting.
> They are not the only one. There are others who claim to be NetWare HTTPD
> NLM and come out to be either NCSA or NetScape.

I just know I'm going to*this up, but here goes...

First of all, iserver is a competitor of mine, so don't consider this an
endor*t, just a correction.

If you look at the original post, he talks about *true* virtual hosting, and
how this is done is by providing a FULL OS install, complete with partition,
complete with MUA, appropriate daemons, and appropriate configuration.  It
stands to reason, therefore, that telnetting to ANY iserver client would give
you EXACTLY what you got--otherwise his claims would be false.  So what
if he's using NCSA, Apache, or whatever.  As an iserver client, I imagine you
could choose what web server you wanted to run and go for it.

I thought my post was necessary before people started reading the underinformed
flamebacks without looking carefully at the original post.  No lie was
posted, TTBOMK.

Again, no endor*t, just a correction.

--
Carl Payne
CTO, Fibernet Corporation

        UNIX:  Where else can you spawn zombies, fork without permission,
        kill your children and eat cycles as part of your daily routine?

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Kevin Mart » Sat, 21 Oct 1995 04:00:00



>If you look at the original post, he talks about *true* virtual hosting, and
>how this is done is by providing a FULL OS install, complete with partition,
>complete with MUA, appropriate daemons, and appropriate configuration.  It
>stands to reason, therefore, that telnetting to ANY iserver client would give
>you EXACTLY what you got--otherwise his claims would be false.  So what
>if he's using NCSA, Apache, or whatever.  As an iserver client, I imagine you
>could choose what web server you wanted to run and go for it.

So you're saying that each server is its own machine?  Well, then it isn't
virtual.  And that would be a great value - so why doesn't it say you get
your own machine anywhere in his literature or post?

There's a maze of domain registrations, mixing ISERVER.COM and WIA.NET with
stuff like RAXCO.COM, SECURE.NET, and even BYU.EDU.  But the part that I
found particularly suspicious was that Telnet (port 23 normal login) to
both www.iserver.com and www.axent.com (one of their customers) gave the
exact same banner: "iServer (ttyp2)".  Traceroute also gives identical
results, but since it's all in the same Class C, that's not so surprising,
maybe.

Quote:>I thought my post was necessary before people started reading the underinformed
>flamebacks without looking carefully at the original post.  No lie was
>posted, TTBOMK.

>Again, no endor*t, just a correction.

I just don't understand what they claim to be offering.  Is it the usual,
in which case they're being misleading, or is it a unique machine, or is it
multiple servers with something to divert to different ports - essentially
a less efficient variety of the usual virtual hosting...?

--

Pinball Archive: http://www.veryComputer.com/://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/pinball
In the beginning, there was nothing.  And God said, "Let there be Light."
And there was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Carl Pay » Sat, 21 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:> So you're saying that each server is its own machine?  Well, then it isn't
> virtual.  And that would be a great value - so why doesn't it say you get
> your own machine anywhere in his literature or post?

Well, I was hoping Eric or someone from WIA/iServer/Whateverwearetoday would chime
in and either correct me or append the post I made, so the following is even
FURTHER out on a limb.  Once again, this is not an endor*t, I do not speak
for them, and I'm sure they can do an excellent job of answering your questions.

No, it's not a dedicated machine.  Picture a machine with multiple partitions.  Picture
an operating system (likely a BSDI spinoff) with a proprietary kernel.  Picture this
one machine appearing as many many machines.  As many root accounts as there are
partitions.  As many copies of sendmail as partitions.  You get the idea.

I'm not qualified to go on any further, nor do I want to. I figure someone
will speak up and either support this or surrendur.  It's a good idea, though.

--
Carl Payne
CTO, Fibernet Corporation

        UNIX:  Where else can you spawn zombies, fork without permission,
        kill your children and eat cycles as part of your daily routine?

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Carl Pay » Mon, 23 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>I'm not sure I like this much. Imagine 150 virtual domains on
>one physical server, then imagine 150 sendmails sweeping through
>on intervals, making mail resend attempts.  
>yech!  (no offence meant to the people, just the theory)

Oh, I agree.  However, that was the way it was presented in public, and that's
the way their literature makes me think, so I have to assume that these highly
qualified people (they really are, actually) have devised some special
proprietary way to defeat or at least manage things like spindle lag, daemon
cross-threading and memory address conflicts.

But, if you look at it this way it isn't so bad: everything starts out with a
first release.  Everything that is good now at one time wasn't.  Every
innovation requires periods of frustration.  Every Unix worth its salt has
been built by someone who knew the predecessor inside and out.

Carl

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Kevin Mart » Wed, 25 Oct 1995 04:00:00



>Here's how _I_'d do it, if I had the time and inclination:

Not bad, I guess.

I still don't see the advantages for virtual hosting, though.  It seems
clear to me that doing the "virtualizing" at the per-service level instead
of in the kernel is more efficient, because the machine doesn't have to
carry the overhead of each new set of processes (which can be
considerable).  You're afforded no better protection from the failure of
the system, either.

What could there be in the control files that you'd so desperately want to
change, anyway?  Or did he merely say "log files"?  Those could be
generated from regular log files.

Oh well, whatever.

--

Pinball Archive: http://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/ ftp://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/pinball
"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."
  - J. Danforth Quayle, 20 Jul 1989

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Rus Berret » Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:00:00




>>No, it's not a dedicated machine.  Picture a machine with multiple partitions.  Picture
>>an operating system (likely a BSDI spinoff) with a proprietary kernel.  Picture this
>>one machine appearing as many many machines.  As many root accounts as there are
>>partitions.  As many copies of sendmail as partitions.  You get the idea.

>No, I thought about that, and it just doesn't seem practical.  Does the
>custom kernel reroute every incoming connection based on IP address?  How
>does it reroute it?  It can't be by port number, because too many of those
>are "hardwired" (read /etc/services).  Does it manually reroute every
>packet it gets?  Sounds like a major pain to me, and very possibly a big
>performance hit.  And you're still running a complete new set of processes
>for each virtual machine, without the benefit of sharing the overhead of
>running any one process or service.

>It just seems absurd.  I'm not heartened by the fact that they haven't
>chimed in to explain themselves better.  I still think they're doing the
>same virtual hosting as everyone else, and covering it up with misleading
>marketing hype.

Sorry Kevin (et al):

I take a week off.... I'm back now and here is my "chime".

I mentioned in another post, but I should repeat it here:

I'm not going to give any trade secrets away.... but basically we hacked the
BSD Kernel to multiplex a single UNIX machine into several "virtual machines".
Each virtual server user will get their own set of virtual services that they
may customize to their liking or needs.  Each virtual server has its own unique
domain name and IP address.  When a request comes in, the Virtual Server System
will detemine which virtual server will service the request based on this IP
address and then invoke the appropriate service to respond to the request.

This same info can be found on our home page at the following URL-

http://www.iserver.com/virtual/server/howitworks.html

- Show quoted text -

>--
>Kevin Martin


 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Rus Berret » Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:00:00




>>Iserver provides FULL virtual WWW, FTP, POP, and e-mail services. Unlike
>>"virtual hosting" such as Apache servers and others,

>Whoops:

>% telnet www.iserver.com 80
>Trying 204.212.248.99...
>Connected to www.iserver.com.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>HEAD / HTTP/1.0

>HTTP/1.0 200 Document follows
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:38:18 GMT
>Server: NCSA/1.4.1
>Content-type: text/html

>Looks like you're running the same server as everybody else out there doing
>Virtual Hosting.

Hmm...I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.  How can you tell it is
just doing virtual hosting without looking under the hood?  :^)

I am sure the header message could be changed to say what ever you want it to
say.

NCSA httpd is a good choice considering the number of people running. An
Internet survey I saw a few days ago showed that over 50% of the servers where
NCSA httpd's, and most of the CGIs that I have seen are written for NCSA httpd.

Quote:

>>ISI's Virtual Server
>>System comes with its own configuration files, cgi-bin, and access logs.

>Are you running one HTTPD for each virtual server to do this?  That would
>be the only thing I can see that's different - and it seems awfully
>inefficient for the server, with little benefit to customers.

ISI's virtual server uses a master-slave(s) configuration similar to what most
modern WWW servers use.  As with any virtual hosting system the performance of
ISI's virtual servers, of course, would not be the same as a dedicated server.
However, the cost of a virtual server is a lot less than establishing your own
server and Internet connection.  Therefore, a virtual server seems like a good
way to "get your feet wet" with the Internet without getting soaked by some
ISP.

Quote:

>>This is quite unlike "Virtual Hosting" which merely spoofs the domain name of a
>>company to point to a subdirectory of a server controlled by someone else. Thus
>>ISI's Virtual Server System is redefining the word "virtual", bringing more
>>control and power to the WWW market.

>I'm just curious about what basis in reality such radical claims really
>have.

Well, a "netscan" shows about 150 or so companies are using ISI's virtual
servers.  That seems like a lot of customers for something that sounds like
*virtual* reality, right?  :)

Feel free to visit our list of customers and e-mail any one of them for candid
opinions about their experience with Iserver:

http://www.iserver.com/customer/list.html

>--

>Pinball Archive: http://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/ ftp://pinball.cc.cmu.edu/pinball
>Q: Why do ducks have flat feet?      A: To stamp out forest fires.
>Q: Why do elephants have flat feet?  A: To stamp out flaming ducks.

I welcome any additonal questions you may have.

Rus Berrett

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Rus Berret » Thu, 26 Oct 1995 04:00:00




>[bunch of stuff clipped]

>> As many copies of sendmail as partitions.  You get the idea.

>[bunch of stuff clipped]

>I'm not sure I like this much. Imagine 150 virtual domains on
>one physical server, then imagine 150 sendmails sweeping through
>on intervals, making mail resend attempts.

Imagine just 40 on a P120.  Imagine a roomful of P120's connected to the
Internet on a dedicated T1 (what will soon be a T3 connection- middle of
November).  Imagine paying just $30/month to put your web pages on a T3 with
your own domain.

Quote:

>yech!  (no offence meant to the people, just the theory)

I would recommend you email those who have TESTED the theory (we have as of yet
not had one customer drop our services who stayed longer than 30 days).  Check
out the following URL for 150 or so customers:

http://www.iserver.com/customer/list.html

>--



Warm regards,

Rus Berrett

 
 
 

Virtual Servers: WWW, FTP, POP, SMTP, SSL capable (not simply Virtual Hosting)

Post by Joe Rhe » Sun, 29 Oct 1995 04:00:00



>I'm not going to give any trade secrets away.... but basically we hacked the
>BSD Kernel to multiplex a single UNIX machine into several "virtual machines".
>Each virtual server user will get their own set of virtual services that they

Let's kill this thread:

Hey guys, think about it.  Rus & company haven't done any major hacking -
they're only doing what many others have done.  They're running each
server in it's own CHROOTed environment.  We do that - many many other
people have done that.  Iserver simply took our posts, scripts and examples
and put them to commercial use.

If they legitimately had made kernel mods, giving technical details away
wouldn't hurt - how many people here can modify kernels on the fly?
The truth is that they didn't do that, and they need to protect that info.

[ Ask a few discreet questions around the BSD groups, get some interesting
answers.  Nobody at Iserver every asked questions about kernel mods, but
they did ask questions about 'chroot' ..... ]

A few mods to handle binding only to a single IP address, and !poof! - they
make big, loud, noise about having a custom environment.

ISERVER: Push your marketing marketing material around in www.providers,
not here.  If you care to provide technical details you can post here.

........but since you're not 'giving away trade secrets', just shut up.

--
-----                                                                   -----
Joe Rhett                                                       Navigist, Inc.
Systems Engineer                                                (408) 397-5803

My opinions are not my own, they are those of my cat. I have no opinions.

 
 
 

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

This query refers to Apache 1.3.24 and mod_ssl 2.8.8-1.3.24, on
Solaris 8.

I am running a bunch of name-based virtual hosts on port 80 using a
wildcard in the NameVirtualHosts directive. I am load balancing across
a lot of real servers and want to have the same config files on each
server, so I don't want to have to specify the server IP address in
httpd.conf.

I now want to add an SSL virtual host on port 443. I know that I can't
have name-based virtual hosts with SSL, and I don't need them -- I
just need the one. But if I try to add a virtual host configuration
like:

<VirtualHost _default_:443>
    [SSL configuration stuff]
</VirtualHost>

I get the error message "mixing * ports and non-* ports with a
NameVirtualHost address is not supported, proceeding with undefined
results".

Is there any other way I can have several name-based virtual hosts on
port 80, a single SSL virtual host on port 443 and not have to put the
server IP address in httpd.conf?

2. MGA Ultima and XFree86

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

4. Advocacy tool

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

6. Oracle SQL*Net on Linux

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

8. bzImage and zImage error

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

10. Virtual Server vs. Virtual Host

11. Virtual host on a virtual server

12. Virtual Host not available in SSL

13. You should not use name-based virtual hosts with SSL??