Well, it would make adding VMs set up to run a "site" very easy. They would all look the same (tomcat/jetty, JDK, svn, etc.). So, you'd know exactly where to go to make changes. I use Apache virtual hosts at home, too, but I don't have that many domains set up (I have 2 I think). Setting up a new instance of Tomcat/Jetty for each one of these sites and maintaining the proxy forwards in Apache can be a PITA. That's just my $0.02. The sites shouldn't need that much memory anyway (JIRA/TeamCity might require more of course).
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 18 May 2008, James Carman wrote: >> How about setting them up as VMs? > > This might require partitioning the memory statically for > each virtual server. I think that name-based virtual hosts > by Apache on the front would probably be the most cost- > effective solution. > > Best wishes, > Timo > > -- > Timo Rantalaiho > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > >
