Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Post by William Per » Tue, 15 Aug 1995 04:00:00





> >Netscape's Communications server requires that you reinstall the
> >product every time you want to add a new domain.  Also, it spawns a
> >whole new set of processes to handle this domain.

> You don't have to reinstall the entire product each time -- you
> simply need a separate set of configuration files for each
> instance. The binaries are shared, and all of the servers are
> managed from a single, web-based administration utility.
> >What if you need to have 10, or 20, or more virtual domains?  Won't
> >this eat up all you machines memory?  Isn't NCSA 1.5 or Apache more
> >efficient?
> Not by a long shot. The reason that several processes are run for
> each server is precisely *for* efficiency. The server doesn't have
> to go through all of the work of starting a new process to serve
> each request -- it can simply be served by a process that is ready
> and waiting.

> Also, the number of processes that remain in memory is completely
> configurable by you. You can set the minimum number of processes
> that will always remain in memory, and you can set the maximum
> number of additional processes that can be opened at periods of high
> demand.

  I think the main gripe he has is that you have to run a separate
instance of the server to serve each domain, which can be a bit of a
pain.  Suppose you have 20 domains on one solaris box, and each of
your customers wants to have peak performance, so demands that you
prefork 15 child processes for their domain.  That's 300 processes
running.  Ouch.

  I'm not sure how apache or NCSA does the multi-domain stuff, so they
may or may not be more efficient.

  -Bill P.

 
 
 

Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Post by John Banghar » Tue, 15 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Netscape's Communications server requires that you reinstall the product every
time you want to add a new domain.  Also, it spawns a whole new set of
processes to handle this domain.

What if you need to have 10, or 20, or more virtual domains?  Won't this eat up
all you machines memory?  Isn't NCSA 1.5 or Apache more efficient?

Maybe I am missing something but if someone could give me some info on this
subject, or personal stories, I would be most appreciative.

-John

 
 
 

Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Post by Casey Barto » Tue, 15 Aug 1995 04:00:00



>Netscape's Communications server requires that you reinstall the product every
>time you want to add a new domain.  Also, it spawns a whole new set of
>processes to handle this domain.

You don't have to reinstall the entire product each time -- you simply need a
separate set of configuration files for each instance. The binaries are shared,
and all of the servers are managed from a single, web-based administration
utility.

Quote:>What if you need to have 10, or 20, or more virtual domains?  Won't this eat up
>all you machines memory?  Isn't NCSA 1.5 or Apache more efficient?

Not by a long shot. The reason that several processes are run for each server
is precisely *for* efficiency. The server doesn't have to go through all of the
work of starting a new process to serve each request -- it can simply be served
by a process that is ready and waiting.

Also, the number of processes that remain in memory is completely configurable
by you. You can set the minimum number of processes that will always remain in
memory, and you can set the maximum number of additional processes that can be
opened at periods of high demand.

--

 
 
 

Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Post by Gertjan van Oost » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00



> What if you need to have 10, or 20, or more virtual domains?  Won't
> this eat up all you machines memory?

>   I think the main gripe he has is that you have to run a separate
> instance of the server to serve each domain, which can be a bit of a
> pain.  Suppose you have 20 domains on one solaris box, and each of
> your customers wants to have peak performance, so demands that you
> prefork 15 child processes for their domain.  That's 300 processes
> running.  Ouch.

On the other hand, if you have such customers and demands, it isn't too
hard to add another system and distribute the load (i.e. move half of
the domains to the other system).  Or add some processors and memory to
the existing system.  With 20 demanding customers, you can afford that.


> Isn't NCSA 1.5 or Apache more efficient?

>   I'm not sure how apache or NCSA does the multi-domain stuff, so they
> may or may not be more efficient.

I know the CERN server (with the multi-IP patch) works the same way: one
server per IP address.

--

 
 
 

Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Post by System Adm » Wed, 16 Aug 1995 04:00:00


[snip]
:   I'm not sure how apache or NCSA does the multi-domain stuff, so they
: may or may not be more efficient.

I am running apache under Sunos 4.1.3.  It has the option of running one
server with virtual domains or running a seperate server for each IP
address.

The speed gain in running a seperate server is tremendous.  I suggest
running one server for the low volume domains and running dedicated for
the higher traffic.  I personally setup a seperate server for each domain.

I currently run 17 domains on an old Sun 4/290 with 32 megs of ram.  The
combined traffic of all the domains is about 25 thousand hits a day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

News/Web/DNS Admin
NorthWest RAINet, Inc.

 
 
 

Virtual Domains: NetSite sucks?

Post by Lucien Van Else » Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:00:00



>  I think the main gripe he has is that you have to run a separate
>instance of the server to serve each domain, which can be a bit of a
>pain.  Suppose you have 20 domains on one solaris box, and each of
>your customers wants to have peak performance, so demands that you
>prefork 15 child processes for their domain.  That's 300 processes
>running.  Ouch.

The OpenMarket servers (http://www.openmarket.com) use multi-threaded processes
as servers, instead of multiple single-threaded processes.  This process should
relive this problem without losing performance- I havn't yet tried their
product myself, though, but their demo's/papers make the case pretty well.

   -Lucien

 
 
 

1. Netsite: 3 virtual domains?

How can I set 3 virtual domains with Netsite under Solaris 2.4? We currently
have 3 network cards, one of which is the primary interface (of course). We
managed to make it work using proxies on the port 80 of all interfaces
redirecting requests to port 2095 of the primary interface.

However, Netsite is supposed to be able to use virtual domains. How can I
achieve this?

--
Stephane Hamel                                   SOFTIMAGE Inc.
 - Unix System Administrator                     3510 St-Laurent, #400
 - Network License Specialist                    Montreal, Quebec
 - WebMaster                                     H2X 2V2


2. xlock in redhat 4.1

3. Virtual domains and netsite?

4. sh -f

5. APACHE/Newbie: Virtual Domains under a Virtual Domain?

6. Scanner (TWAIN?) support (x86 2.5.1)

7. X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!

8. function

9. SGI/Netsite & virtual Apache

10. Running multiple domain www server using Netsite under SGI

11. Help with Virtual Servers w/ NetSite and Solaris 2.3

12. Does netsite support multi-domain?

13. Virtual Domain/Sub Domain?