VHosting

[KeithSmith]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.


datawolf@ibm.net wrote:
> 
> KeithSmith wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have about 50 questions about VHosting.
> >
> > Name Vs IP based Virtual hosting.
> >
> > 1) The Apache documentation does not make it clear
> > which is better - Name based VHosting or IP Based
> > VHosting.
> >
> > Which is better and why?
> 
> Name based hosting is cheaper because you don't need an IP address for
> every host.  But IP based hosting is probably technically superior
> because (1) reverse DNS lookups work, (2) some archaic browsers don't
> support it, and (3) you can reach the site by IP address.
> 
> But that's not to say that IP based is completely better, just
> technically better.
> 


I get the feeling most Hosts do named based
VHosting.




> > 2) I was told the following:
> >
> > "I'm handling some 300+ domains right now...
> > IP based is nice, if you can afford the IP's, and
> > the boxes.
> > After 50 or so, the machine starts becoming more
> > taxed by the load of the configuration, by having
> > to handle that many different configurations for
> > the NIC. It depends on the machine's networking.
> > If you have a few hundred domains, suddenly your
> > IP based hosting becomes much more of a pain,
> > just to manage all of those IP's and NIC settings
> > and
> > apache.conf entries. Name based means that you
> > have one less
> > item to worry about."
> >
> > I don't understand this 50 IP VHosts per box
> > ratio.  If this were the case it seems mIcrosOft
> > would have made this a big issue.  I've never
> > heard of this limitation.
> >
> > Is this true or is his configuration wrong causing
> > resource problems?
> 
> I've never had that many IP's on a machine, but it sounds like he
> doesn't mean there is any kind of hard limit, but that it eventually
> starts to affect performance.  It probably starts to affect Windows
> performance, too.  And there's the maintenace issue of keeping all the
> config files.  But you're doing DNS either way, although you don't
> maintain the reverse lookup table for Virtual.
> 
> > 3) I understand that IP is better because the
> > search
> > engines will index the site more freely.  Is this
> > true?
> 
> I don't know, but it's certainly possible.  If the index bots do reverse
> lookups, or don't pass the hostname to the web server, they would be
> affected.  I think the major search engines have figured out how to deal
> with virtual hosts, but I don't know.
> 
> -BVG

You would think they would have all of this down
to a science............ You would think?

Thanks,
Keith

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

-- 
Jesus is Lord!,
Keith Smith
520.298.2227
------------------------------
Come see what's new at:
http://www.christian-home.net/