pro/cons of virtual hosting services
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:13:57 +0100
> poole@localhost writes:
> >
> > To repeat: The second soloution proposed provides all aspects of
> > provider independence. Why should we waste address space if wasting it
> > does not provide significant additional functionality?
>
> Because the customer wants something else (and they pay your wage too
> in the end).
I contest that the majority wants something different from my
second soloution. Please re-read it.
> Please realize that we are talking about a purely -superficial- difference
> of ~$3000* for running a seperate server (PC based) vs. a virtual one
> (typical production costs for a commercial WWW server are multiple 10'000
> of dollars, so we are really talking about noise). Neither solution
> conserves address space, but at least the virtual server conserves certain
> other (more important?) resources *.
But you can run a virtual server without wasting address space!
> Naturally the correct solution would be for the HTTP protocol to pass
> the complete URL to the server, however it's too late for that.
Which I understand is fixed in the newest spec.
Daniel
