Oh, I misunderstood what you were describing. Saying "one instance of apache for each instance of Koha" led me to think you meant a separate apache process group (running under a different UID, with a different config file set, etc.) for each koha instance. It actually never occurred to me that someone would want to host two instances as http://myhost/koha1 and http://myhost/koha2 when name-based virtual hosting requires so little administrative overhead.
So does anyone know of name-space or other conflicts arising from using mod_perl with one koha instance installed per virtual host? Thanks, Clay On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Rick Welykochy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Clay Fouts wrote: > >> Having managed this sort of configuration with MediaWiki, I've had >> thoughts about using it for hosting Koha instances. It has a number of >> advantages, including being more amenable to mod_perl. The biggest >> drawback to this configuration is when applications care about the >> port number on which the HTTP daemon received a request (as MediaWiki >> does) since it's invariably not the port that you want further >> requests to go to. Have you experienced issues like that with Koha? > > We use name-based virtual hosting instead of different ports. > > All web request to all Koha instances go to port 80, and then > Apache sorts them out and dispatches by hostname. > > Fairly common and straightforward web farming technique, wouldn't you > say ;) > > > cheers > rickw > > > -- > _________________________________ > Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services > > Tis the dream of each programmer before his life is done, > To write three lines of APL and make the damn thing run. > _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha.org http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
