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 <rick@praxis.com.au> 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.