Claus wrote:
I have the same setup running. Each apache instance runs chrooted
under their own user id and home directory.
I realized after I sent that message that I left out a couple of
details, like each instance also having its own user (www0-4). I leave
the default www user and /va
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:47:54 -0600, Claus wrote:
> I have the same setup running. Each apache instance runs chrooted under
> their own user id and home directory.
That's a lot of apache instances running... and how much functionality are
you really getting out of them?
Lighttpd or NginX with
Scott McEachern wrote:
... I ended up doing this:
- one OpenBSD box, with multiple IP address aliases
- one OpenBSD firewall, which rdr's external IPs to the appropriate
webserver IP
- 5 chrooted OpenBSD default (1.3.29) Apache's (at this time, I have no
need for Apache 2, but hey, it's i
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:17:29PM -0500, daniel wrote:
> We're currently running about 15 rails, php and coldfusion apps with the
> number growing almost weekly. As much as possible, each app gets its own
> VM (or two) and is proxied to an outward facing web server. I use
> running xen on centos.
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:40:30AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
OMG!! running multiple daemons??? Wow why didn't I think of that??
I *love* OS overhead on misbehaving hardware emulation because it is
what "the industry" prescribes. Don't forget
Use adsuck and let your user whine when something "doesn't work".
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:47:24PM -0500, Brad Tilley wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:18 -0700, "Ted Roby" wrote:
>
> > I can think of one good reason I need a vm machine:
> > So I can put OpenBSD on the Xserves, and run OSX in th
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:18 -0700, "Ted Roby" wrote:
> I can think of one good reason I need a vm machine:
> So I can put OpenBSD on the Xserves, and run OSX in the vm for mac-only
> apps the client requires.
Another good reason:
Reverting compromised Windows machines back to a point in time when
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:40:30AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > OMG!! running multiple daemons??? Wow why didn't I think of that??
> >
> > I *love* OS overhead on misbehaving hardware emulation because it is
> > what "the industry" prescri
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:40:30AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> OMG!! running multiple daemons??? Wow why didn't I think of that??
>
> I *love* OS overhead on misbehaving hardware emulation because it is
> what "the industry" prescribes. Don't forget the 50% hit on I/O speed
> because that is
OMG!! running multiple daemons??? Wow why didn't I think of that??
I *love* OS overhead on misbehaving hardware emulation because it is
what "the industry" prescribes. Don't forget the 50% hit on I/O speed
because that is what every enterprise needs. And lets not forget the
windows only license
Scott McEachern wrote:
PS: I'm dying for the day that relayd handles https too. :)
Many thanks to Todd T. Fries for pointing out relayd does SSL/https.
Dunno if it changed, or if I misread at the time, but I could have sworn
it only did layer 7. My bad.
--
-RSM
http://www.erratic.ca
11 matches
Mail list logo
