I guess I figured that if both servers have a virtual server answering to " bar.foo.com" then I only needed the one cert for "bar.foo.com" installed to both hosts.
On 19/10/2007, Peter Milanese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As far as I know, no. Although, I've never really considered it. > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mark Drummond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: users@httpd.apache.org > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:25:54 AM > Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RE: [SPAM] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > application.company.com vs. www.company.com/application? - Email found in > subject > > We're a relatively small shop. We have some Cisco content switches, and > the intent *is* to load balance across two physical boxes, but the SSL will > be handled by the web servers themselves. > > Can I use the same cert on both machines? > > On 19/10/2007, Peter Milanese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If you have the cash, front end it with some SSL Terminating load > > balancers. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: " [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: users@httpd.apache.org > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:16:47 AM > > Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RE: [SPAM] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > application.company.com vs. www.company.com/application? - Email found > > in subject > > > > Unless you are using the load balancer ( hardware or software ) or a > > load balancing scheme it shouldn't matter. > > > > > > > > *From:* Mark Drummond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Sent:* Friday, October 19, 2007 11:09 AM > > *To:* users@httpd.apache.org > > *Subject:* [SPAM] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] application.company.com vs. > > www.company.com/application? - Email found in subject > > > > > > > > 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 , 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, 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. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > > addressed. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally > > privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or > > lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient, > > please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, > > destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, > > directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any > > part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. > > FXDirectDealer, LLC reserves the right to monitor all e-mail > > communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this > > message are those of the individual sender, except where the > > message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them. > > > > Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information given in this message > > is indicative only, is subject to change and does not constitute an > > offer to deal at any price quoted. Any reference to the terms of > > executed transactions should be treated as preliminary only and subject > > to our formal confirmation. FXDirectDealer, LLC is not responsible for > > any > > recommendation, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information > > about any transaction, customer account or account activity contained in > > this communication. > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- > 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. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- 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.
