On Jul 1, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Michiel van Es wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Cherokee] question about several ssl enabled virtual > hosts > From: Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> > To: Michiel van Es <[email protected]> > Date: 07/01/2009 03:44 PM > >> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Michiel van Es wrote: >> >>>> The easiest fix is just two instances; all problems solved. And >>>> if you are >>>> a biggy corp you are not running your webserver and ssl stuff on >>>> one >>>> single machine anyway ;) >>> Again also the old browser and multiple ssl websites on 1 server: >>> this >>> is what companies want and expect if they are coming from an Apache >>> webserver. >>> >>> If your solution is: buy another webserver or upgrade all your >>> browsers >>> and that from your clients to IE 7 + then you don't have a really >>> clear >>> perceptiveness of what large companies want. >> >> Who prevents you to run to Cherokee instances on the same server? >> Basically you think a little bit too small, you put on constraints >> that >> are not there. > > Why should I run 2 server instances if all other webservers can do it > with one instance? > Are you running your tomcat applications on several tomcat application > servers just for fun? > Is it resource friendly?
Yes. If you do have n processors/cores it would not make much difference in resource serving n different websites with different webserver processes. Or is there a problem? > What about changing the init scripts, upgrade scripts etc. > > I am looking for 1 to 1 replacement for my current Apache setup and > don't like the idea of running 2 or more instances for every SSL > website > or tell my customers and it's customers to upgrade their IE 6... > > But there is a new version coming which fix this issue/feature for > me so > why still discuss it? The fix is elegant and will be on one plugin so everything is okay. But it is an interesting question, isn't it better to have several webserver processes? If another attack like slowloris came out wouldn't it be even safer? I guess that maybe you even want to use different vm's for each website to guarantee security (I think it is the case in banks right?). -- Leonardo Santagada santagada at gmail.com _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
