Darren J Moffat ??: > Huafeng Lu wrote: >> Darren J Moffat wrote: >>> Jia Ni wrote: >>>> I don't mean there can't be 2 pen process in the system. >>>> I mean pen can't be used on ftp, according to my comprehension. >>>> >>>> Back to you question, I can configure 'pen' on port 80 for http >>>> request. Meanwhile, I can configure it on port 8080 for http request. >>>> Again, I can configure it on port 8888 for http request at the same >>>> time. >>>> >>>> I don't know how to deal with such situation according to your >>>> assumption. Should I add pen:http, pen:http8080, pen:http8888? >>> Yes that is exactly what I was suggesting. >> >> I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Providing multiple SMF >> instances for many http ports looks really funny to me. (Yes 8080 and >> 8888 are common for http; with the pen command line options it's easy >> to configure, but providing a SMF instance for each port doesn't seem >> graceful to me.) > > That is the whole point of SMF instances. What you get from this is the > ability to have different people control the difference instances and > for them to be managed independently. For example if the 8080 service > needs to come down for maintenance the 80 and 8888 versions stay running > if they are separate instances, if you put them all in one instance you > disrupt all three.
So how about other ports? do we also need http:8088, http:6666, http:8765, etc? > This is a known and well understood use of SMF that applies perfectly to > this case. >
