Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:20:09 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: Chris Bura <chris@main.Netcorps.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970212121504.7569B-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> In-Reply-To: <199702101559.HAA26941@main.netcorps.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Chris Bura wrote: > So then we upgraded to the new version of Apache. This ones actually has > a function where you can turn hostname resolving on or off. We turned it > on, and nothing. Only IP addresses. > > We installed the same Apache on another server that wasn't handling virtual > domains and it resolved the name just fine. > > So has anybody found a similar problem? > > Does it have to do with the number of V hosts? Is 125 really high? > > The process-wise it's definately not overloaded. What happens if you do a nslookup x.x.x.x, on the web server, for one of the IP addresses in the logs? > > Right now we're using the actuall domain names in the virtual server > directives. Should we use the IP address instead? Would that ease the > workload? You are wise to use IP addresses. If you are using a 1.2 beta, you would also be wise to include a 'ServerName www.example.com' for each virtual host. 1.1 will look it up on startup, but if it fails it will still keep going. Because of the HTTP/1.1 support in 1.2, if either the forward or reverse lookups fail and you don't have the IP in the virtualhost definition and a servername for that host Apache will die. That is not the smartest behavior, since it should keep running even if one virtual host is unusable. I hope to get to fixing this sometime, but probably not before 1.2. As always, clean patches welcome.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970212121504.7569B-100000>