VirtualHosts and WebInterface Admin problems

Discussion in 'Install/Configuration' started by aargoth, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. aargoth

    aargoth New Member

    Hi

    I've just installed LiteSpeed Server (Standard Edition) on one of the test machines for the evaluation purpose (my company is interested in the professional version).

    First test was to start server with the complete list of vhosts from one of the production machines (~3800 vhosts served by optimized Apache 2.0). It succedeed, but with major problems:

    a) vhosts are working only on the 443 port (SSL), but not on the 8088 (selected during install)
    b) I cannot log in to the web administration panel, because of the connection time outs, or (when changed in httpd_conf.xhtml from 10 sec, to 300sec) I see only the blank page after login. I think its the problem with PHP memory limits or execution time...

    Because of that I evaluate this software, and I don't know if it is worth future purchasing.


    p.s. apache vhosts were converted by the installator.
  2. xing

    xing LiteSpeed Staff

    Sorry to hear you had a bit of rough start. Don't worry, we are here to make sure you get back on the right foot.

    A) Please check that in the "interface", ip:port binding, screen that the vhosts are associated with the 808 port/interface.

    It could be the apache config converter properly binded the SSL ports to the domains/vhosts but not the regular 8080 ones.

    B) This should not happen. The admin is a self contained php admin with it's own php stock straight form the installer. Please double check permissions or that you are accessing the right port of the web min.

    Please post/note any suspicious log entries in error.log or stderr.log iwthin "/install/lsws/logs/" directory and "/install/lsws/admin/logs".

    The log entries will shed light on why you are experiencing these two problems.
  3. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    aargoth,

    The current design of web admin interface may be not able to take 3000 vhosts, it is a design issue, we will improve that.
    However, there are other options other than importing all vhosts during installation, that will create dedicated configuration for each vhost which overloads the admin interface. instead you can try our vhost template feature, which is designed for mass hosting environment. Please take a look at:

    http://www.litespeedtech.com/docs/HowTo_QA.html#qa_template

    Another option is to let LSWS use Apache configuration directly, if you are using a control panel to manage all vhosts, it is pretty handy, you don't need to do anything other than replacing Apache with LSWS.

    Your feedback is appreciated. :)
  4. aargoth

    aargoth New Member

    Unfortunately I cannot use vhost template feature because of the existing directory structure on our servers.

    I could easily live without the webadmin interface since our servers (and apache vhosts) are managed by software almost entirely written by me, changing some part of software is not a problem. The question is: how to tell LSWS to listen on the right port without access to the faulty webadmin (I've tried to alter the httpd_conf.xml: changed *:443 to *:8088, and disabled SSL options but with no effect - LSWS served only the welcome page), or how to use the apache configs directly (still I'm afraid that LSWS would listen on the SSL port rather than 8088 or 80).

    p.s.:
    This is only a hint for you: 3800 vhosts is not a record on our servers, some time ago we hosted about 7500 domains/subdomains on a single webserver. I would like to know if there won't be any problem with this in a future.
  5. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    I think you can use different template for each group of vhosts with similar directory structure. And the root directory for each vhost can be overriden as well.

    I suggest you reinstall LSWS without importing Apache configuration, then you can play with the the template configuration and the option to use apache configuration directly from the web admin interface.

    There should not be any problem with large amount of vhosts when the other two methods were used.

Share This Page