Hi all,I have Apache sitting in front of some WebSphere app servers. So far, we have always used virtual hosts in Apache to give each application it's own FQDN. So we have app1.foo.com <http://app1.foo.com>, app2.foo.com <http://app2.foo.com> etc. This is leading to a (small) proliferation of FQDNs, and now I am wondering if it is better to have a single FQDN and use URIs to separate the applications. In other words, going to www.foo.com/app1 <http://www.foo.com/app1>, www.foo.com/app2 <http://www.foo.com/app2>. So now I am trying to figure out the pros and cons, and looking for some input on how others are doing this.The way I see it, separate FQDNs for every application require more administration. Because we are doing SSL everywhere I have to use IP based virtual hosts so I'm creating new interfaces and allocating new IP addresses for every new application. And then every app requires it's own certificate. On the other hand, the increased separation between applications (separate virtual hosts) looks good on paper, and does give me configuration flexibility, separate log files etc.Moving to www.foo.com/app# <http://www.foo.com/app#> means I only ever need one certificate. Adding a new app is as easy as creating a new directory under htdocs. I end up with just one log file, but that is OK since awstats can filter for us.Any input is appreciated. Thanks, Mark -- Georgia: Why am I not doing what they're doing?Rube: Because you're doing what you're doing. When it's time for you to do something else you'll do that.
-- Michael McGlothlin Southwest Plumbing Supply --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|