On Thu, 28 May 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It' sin the apache docs, called IP based virtual hosts if memory serves.
If you want to run SSL, then IP vhosts is the only way to go.
--
A
On Sunday 31 May 2009 01:27:07 Mick wrote:
Added to that, my employer is an ISP and not shy with budgets, so a
purchase order for new hardware in a case like this will not raise any
eyebrows. For me, it's a low level of risk high impact scenario and the $
cost is low.
In a
On Thursday 28 May 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:51:26 Stroller wrote:
So I recommend option 4:
Pony up the money for server #2
Just for the sake of satanic advocacy, could you indulge me, please?
Let's say Mick is the administrator for all domains in
Hi All,
I am considering running an ecommerce website (php+mysql) on a server which is
already running apache (with a number of virtual hosts) and a couple of
php+mysql driven websites.
The ecommerce website is meant to be used to process customer payments. I
have not looked into setting up
On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:57:08 Mick wrote:
Hi All,
I am considering running an ecommerce website (php+mysql) on a server which
is already running apache (with a number of virtual hosts) and a couple of
php+mysql driven websites.
The ecommerce website is meant to be used to process
On Thursday 28 May 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
A chroot jail is of no real use to you here - it's a development tool and
amazingly useful for gentoo installs, but has no real security or process
separation benefits. So says Alan - not me, a different one.
OK, thanks for this to both of you! :)
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:57:08 Mick wrote:
I am considering running an ecommerce website (php+mysql) on a server which
is already running apache (with a number of virtual hosts) and a couple of
php+mysql driven websites.
The ecommerce website is meant to be used to
On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:33:02 Mick wrote:
On Thursday 28 May 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
A chroot jail is of no real use to you here - it's a development tool and
amazingly useful for gentoo installs, but has no real security or process
separation benefits. So says Alan - not me, a
On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:34:33 Jarry wrote:
Ad.2: he can assign 2 IPs to single NIC. No need to buy the second NIC.
BTW, I was in a similar situation: one user wanted to use notoriously
buggy phpBB, but I did not want to risk compromising my other web-pages.
So I have opted for #5:
On 28 May 2009, at 20:12, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
Your problem will be that only one apache instance can run on port 80.
Your options:
1. Run the ecommerce apache on a different port.
2. Install a second NIC with a different IP and bind each apache to
port 80 on
it's own nic.
Or run the
On Thursday 28 May 2009 21:51:26 Stroller wrote:
So I recommend option 4:
Pony up the money for server #2
Just for the sake of satanic advocacy, could you indulge me, please?
Let's say Mick is the administrator for all domains in question. He
decides to run the two sites on different
Alan McKinnon wrote:
So I have opted for #5: vserver-sources, and I have multiple instances
of apache running in pretty good isolated vserver-guests.
My €0.0144 ...
I used vserver once, and was very impressed with the performance. I didn't use
it eventually, as I found administering a real
12 matches
Mail list logo
