At 12:32 PM 4/14/01 -0400, you wrote:
>My company operates several hundred sites as an ASP.  I am looking for a
>highly efficient and scaleable alternative to the Cold Fusion/IIS
>architecture currently in place.  I am wondering if our ASP model works
>with AOLServer.  In our architecture all sites reside on all web servers,
>each server has two IPs (one for HTTP traffic, one for SSL traffic...with
>IIS it isn't sufficient to simply use a different port for SSL).  Each site
>is virtual with direction occurring via the host header.
>
>In searching through the archives of this list, I have grown somewhat
>confused as to whether AOLServer supports host header based virtual sites
>via nsvhr in its current release and whether this works efficiently.
>
>Given that we need to support more than 255 sites per machine and load
>balance multiple machines, is AOLServer a good solution?
>
>TIA,
>
>Marc Stein

Is AOLserver a good solution for you? It depends.

AOLserver supports host header based virtual hosting in a variety of
ways.  One is the nsvhr module which is supported in the current
release.  But other users have written their own modules as they have
requirements differing from nsvhr.

If all your sites are very similar and can share the database connections,
you can almost certainly do what you want relatively efficiently with Tom
Jackson's VAT module (or with other "VHOST" modules.)

If your sites can share database connections, but cannot share Tcl
libraries, than you will probably need AOLserver 4, in beta now, to provide
the efficient header based virtual sites that you're seeking.

If your sites cannot share database connections or tcl libraries, than
nsvhr/nsunix is the best way to go, but you will almost certainly need
truckloads of memory to support 256 connections.  (since nsvhr places
different hosts in different processes).  My smallest AOLserver process is
about 5M (and ACS sites are more like 25M), so 255 of the smallest sites
will require about 1.25Gig just for AOLserver process memory.  And then,
you'll almost certainly need more memory for your various database
connections.  Some of the database memory connections can be reduced: if
you're using PostgreSQL or Oracle, you can put the database on a different
machine than serves all of your sites.

Yours,

Jerry Asher

=====================================================
Jerry Asher                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1678 Shattuck Avenue Suite 161    Tel: (510) 549-2980
Berkeley, CA 94709                Fax: (877) 311-8688

Reply via email to