* Nick Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to resurrect this thread, but IMHO (as someone who's an appalling > C developer), we really really need perchild or something like it to > work. Having tried MetuxMPM (and got annoyed with its inability to deal > with SSL), I believe some serious work needs to be done here.
The problem is: SSL is *NOT* usable for virtual hosting. You need an separate socket for each SSL vhost, so you'll probably prefere several independent httpd's - maybe then stripped down w/o any vhost support. > >- What are the other design considerations to doing 'perchild' the > >'right' way? > My only consideration is this. We are in the process of implementing a > per-UID bandwidth accounting setup on our hosts. I think the process of > using the frontend to handle the socket would mean that all traffic > would go through this frontend process (and thus the UID owning it). > This would preclude our traffic measures from having any meaning. Does > anyone have any thoughts on this? Aehm, what exactly do you want to do ? Measure users's consumed traffic ? (-> logfile ?) Measure users's consumed bandwidth ? (eh, does this make sense at all? ) Limit user's bandwidth ? (very complicated w/o proper kernel support) cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
