Hi Tony

Thanks for your feedback.

We¹ve already invested a considerable amount in developing this software, so
I doubt I could secure more funding to adapt it to another platform. Even if
I could, there is no commercial case for us to continue funding the ongoing
development and maintenance when we can use Apache for free. So, by
providing such as significant head-start, I was hoping I could drum up
enough support among the existing Cherokee developers.

Regards

Marcus 


> 
> I am sure everyone wants to see Cherokee use grow.  However, volunteer
> developers can only do so much.  They still have to earn a living.  If you are
> going to use it on that scale, which is great, why not put some money on the
> table as an investment for you and the community.  Even if it is not what you
> would pay a contractor, volunteers might be much more motivated.  You would
> still be benefiting from the incredible amount of work that has already gone
> into Cherokee.  Also, if use grows worldwide, you would benefit in the long
> run if other commercial companies decided to begin to deploy it and contribute
> back code.
> 
> Just my two cents.  
> 
> Tony Zakula
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Marcus Don <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Since I've had virtually no response to my email below, I'll try again in
>> far fewer words.
>> 
>> I'm interested in using Cherokee to host around 50,000 sites and 600,000
>> domains, with the potential to extend this to 600,000 sites and 1.6 million
>> domains.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, our customers want mod_rewrite, which Cherokee doesn't
>> currently support. However, we own the source code for a mod_rewrite
>> equivalent, which we are willing to donate to Cherokee if enough people are
>> interested.
>> 
>> If you are interested in the possibility of Cherokee becoming a serious
>> alternative to Apache for commercial, mass hosting, please let me know.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > Apologies in advance for the length of this email, please bear with me :)
>>> >
>>> > First an introduction: I'm senior manager of R&D for a group of ISPs
>>> including
>>> > register.it <http://register.it> , names.co.uk <http://names.co.uk> ,
>>> nominalia.es <http://nominalia.es> , amen.fr <http://amen.fr> ,
>>> register365.com <http://register365.com> ,  and
>>> > simplyhosting.com <http://simplyhosting.com> . As a group, we host over
>>> 1.6 million domains and 600,000
>>> > web sites.
>>> >
>>> > Currently, we have 3 shared hosting clusters in Italy, the UK and Ireland.
>>> The
>>> > Italian platform is based on Apache and the UK and Irish platforms are
>>> based
>>> > on Zeus Web Server. We also have a legacy platform, inherited from a
>>> recent
>>> > acquisition, based on Apache and H-Sphere, which we are currently
>>> migrating to
>>> > Zeus.
>>> >
>>> > Until recently, we have been very happy with our choice of Zeus Web
>>> Server. We
>>> > have gained a solid reputation in the UK for having a very high-performing
>>> and
>>> > reliable platform, and we have won the UK ISP Award (ISPA) for Best Shared
>>> > Hosting for the last 3 years running. However, we are now considering
>>> > migrating away from ZWS for the following reasons:
>>> >
>>> > 1) It hasn't been updated since 2007, and Zeus will not commit to any
>>> future
>>> > updates other than security patches.
>>> > 2) It makes commercial sense for us to use the same technology everywhere
>>> in
>>> > the group.
>>> > 3) Zeus does not support mod_rewrite.
>>> >
>>> > Given these requirements, and the fact we are already using it in Italy,
>>> the
>>> > obvious solution would be to use Apache on all platforms. However, I am
>>> > seriously concerned that the performance would suffer as a result, so I'm
>>> > currently studying the feasibility of other options.
>>> >
>>> > The need for mod_rewrite is a practical, commercial requirement based on
>>> the
>>> > fact that many 3rd-party applications require rewrite rules, and the vast
>>> > majority only work with mod_rewrite without the intervention of a
>>> developer.
>>> > This has always been something of issue for us, and the growing popularity
>>> of
>>> > open source software among non-developers is greatly exacerbating the
>>> problem.
>>> > Also, we now provide Softaculous for our customers, but we've had to
>>> disable
>>> > many of the 150+ applications because of their reliance on mod_rewrite.
>>> >
>>> > Furthermore, when we started migrating the H-Sphere platform, we found an
>>> > unusually high proportion of domains are using mod_rewrite. During
>>> previous
>>> > migrations, we have replaced them with Zeus rewrite scripts, but this time
>>> the
>>> > numbers are just too high.
>>> >
>>> > So, we recently employed an experienced C developer to write an ISAPI
>>> filter
>>> > to replicate exactly the behaviour of mod_rewrite under Zeus. However,
>>> > although this works perfectly in our development environment (even under
>>> > extremely heavy loads), after a few days on the live platform, something
>>> goes
>>> > very wrong. After several weeks of debugging, testing and reading memory
>>> > dumps, we're convinced the problem is with Zeus's ISAPI implementation -
>>> but
>>> > so far we are unable to prove it, and I'm not sure they would fix it even
>>> if
>>> > we could!
>>> >
>>> > If you are interested, I am confident I could arrange for the source code
>>> of
>>> > our ISAPI Rewrite module to be released to the Cherokee project for use as
>>> an
>>> > optional module. Obviously, the ISAPI layer would need to be replaced, but
>>> > this is a minor part of the code. All we ask in return is that someone
>>> adds
>>> > support for the other, mostly very simple, htaccess directives. I can ask
>>> the
>>> > original developer if he would be willing to contribute to this, but he
>>> > doesn't work for me so I can't guarantee it.
>>> >
>>> > Without this functionality, the only other option available to us is
>>> LiteSpeed
>>> > - but I'm not keen on adopting another closed-source solution that isn't
>>> > gaining significant market share. Also, I am convinced this is the only
>>> major
>>> > hurdle preventing other mass hosting providers from moving away from
>>> Apache to
>>> > something that scales more efficiently, such as Cherokee.
>>> >
>>> > Lastly, I have another feature suggestion to address the needs of mass
>>> hosting
>>> > - support for custom document root mapping functions.
>>> >
>>> > Currently, we use the same method as shown in the documentation - ie
>>> > /sites/e/x/example.com <http://example.com> . This is fine for a few 10s
>>> of thousands of sites, but
>>> > not very efficient once you get beyond 100,000. A better solution is what
>>> we
>>> > use on our email clusters, which have many more users (around 1,000,000 in
>>> > Italy). This uses the last 3 characters of the MD5 checksum of the
>>> username,
>>> > like this: /email/5ab/example.com <http://example.com> . This produces a
>>> more even distribution and,
>>> > by being wide and shallow, allows for a much more efficient stat cache.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> > Marcus
>>> > --
>>> > Marcus Don
>>> > Senior Manager
>>> > Research and Development
>>> > DadaPro
>>> >
>>> > Main Line:     +44 (0)845 363 3630
>>> > Main Fax:      +44 (0)845 363 3631
>>> > Tech Support:  +44 (0)845 363 3634
>>> > Email:         [email protected]
>>> > Website:       http://www.names.co.uk
>>> > Address:       Acton House, Perdiswell Park, Worcester WR3 7GD
>>> >
>>> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
>>> > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
>>> >
>>> > If you have received this email in error please notify the sender
>>> > immediately.  If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that
>>> > disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the
>>> > contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please note that any
>>> > views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
>>> and
>>> > do not necessarily represent those of the company.
>>> >
>>> > Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
>>> > presence of viruses.  The company accepts no liability for any damage
>>> caused
>>> > by any virus transmitted by this email.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cherokee mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee

Reply via email to