Thanks for the info. I'm reading your howto right now. Sounds like the C
modules will be a good solution for later, after we really have lots of
sites on AOLserver. For now I think the all-TCL "register a proc on /"
solution will work, as long as we don't have trouble with AOLserver hanging,
as I've done many times already using ns_sockopen.
--
Mark Hubbard: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft Certified Professional
"Knowledge is Power."
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Asher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Error Handling
>At 01:21 PM 8/22/01, you wrote:
>>Yes! Thank you! That elusive bit of info will clear a major roadblock to
>>adopting AOLS. I've been puzzling over why the nsvhr and those other
>>modules are needed, if that can be done instead. I guess the C modules
>>would be good for a REALLY high traffic site. But that wouldn't be us.
>
>Regarding multiple paths as regards virtual hosting. I find both the
>simple Tcl and the C based virtual hosting techniques have their uses, it
>depends on what you are trying to do.
>
>nsvhr is really a "port 80" multiplexer. It lets you seamlessly integrate
>all sorts of technology into your webservice, at the same time presenting
>these services to your client on port 80. That both looks nice as well as
>helps you get past firewalls.
>
>But what I really like about nsvhr is that if one aolserver site goes down
>(and they do at times) that it doesn't take any of your other sites
>down. This can happen do to AOLserver bugs that haven't been fixed that
>some one site exploits, or maybe because one site needs to use an as yet
>experimental module.
>
>I've found nsvhr itself to be very stable (modulo the bugs I occasionally
>put into it.)
>
>One shortcoming of AOLserver 3 (rectified in AOLserver 4) is that Tcl based
>AOLservers all share the same Tcl libraries. So if you want one site to
>use say library version 1 of TclFOO, and another site wants to use library
>version 2 of TclFOO, you can't do that. This can lead to site upgrade
>difficulties when you have lots of sites.
>
>If you want to be an ISP that offers thousands of sites that are mainly
>static pages, CGI, or use a fixed set of Tcl procs that you provide, then
>Tcl based virtual hosting is what you want. If you want to piece together
>a complex webservice than you may wish to use an nsvhr/apache/squid reverse
>proxying solution.
>
>Regarding speed, as Jim mention's he's had no problems with up to a million
>hits using Tcl procs. Recent testing of mine
>(http://www.theashergroup.com/tag/articles/reverse-proxies/vhr-benchmarks_f
iles/connection-performance.adp)
>demonstrate that an nsvhr/nssock solution can handle more than 900,000 hits
>per hour (of a 2K file) (on linux) and about 2.5 million hits per day of
>nothing but 32K bytes files.
>
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=====================================================
>Jerry Asher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1678 Shattuck Avenue Suite 161 Tel: (510) 549-2980
>Berkeley, CA 94709 Fax: (877) 311-8688
