Can you provide a bit more information about what you’'re looking for? Do you just want to support sub-domains? Would each sub-domain have different user accounts, etc?
yes, sub-domains. Each sub domain would have a unique
set of users.
Heh, I guess that qualifies as a “bit” more information. Can you provide additional details? What feature set would you need in order to support virtual hosting? Breaking it down into required and “nice to have” features would be great.
Up to this point, great support for virtual hosting hasn’'t been high on the priority list. However, I can see how it would help to spread the use of XMPP a lot.
Thanks for the more detailed feedback. We’‘ll certainly keep virtual hosting in mind for future versions – it would definitely make it easier to host many domains on a single server. As somewhat of a workaround, you can configure multiple Messenger instances on one machine to listen to different domains (although this won’‘t scale terribly well due to the overhead of multiple JVM’'s).
As an aside, support for Flash is included in Messenger 2.1.
ooh. thats very interesting. are there any docs on how to configure multiple messengers to listen to multiple sub domains? do you just run more than one instance?
do you need to run each different Messenger on different ports, or does it play nice and share the port somehow?
if you had a xeon box, with a couple gigs of ram, how much do you think you could run on it in terms of sub domains and users?
You are exactly right, i think an easy to setup and admin vhosting would help spread xmpp quite a bit… think if apache didnt have virtual hosting. eek!
ooh. thats very interesting. are there any docs on
how to configure multiple messengers to listen to
multiple sub domains? do you just run more than one
instance?
Hmm… it looks like we aren’‘t exposing controlling port settings with fine granularity in the admin console yet. I’'ll create an issue to address this for an upcoming release.
do you need to run each different Messenger on
different ports, or does it play nice and share the
port somehow?
You can bind to different networking interfaces. So, if each subdomain has its own IP address, they can all bind to the same port but on different IP’'s.
if you had a xeon box, with a couple gigs of ram, how
much do you think you could run on it in terms of sub
domains and users?
It depends on how large each implementation is, but I would estimate around 30 for 2 GB of RAM. This would need to be tested, of course.
Yes, definitely. However, it will be at least several months before we’'ll be able to start thinking about real virtual host support. The 2.2 release is the next one planned and all of our time will be spent working on things like external components and server to server.
thank you again, i appreciate it. this has prob. been
the best forum discussion ive ever had!
Glad to hear it! We tend to take forums pretty seriously since one of our products is discussion forums.
Thanks,
Matt
P.S. – the issue for controlling ports in the admin console is JM-123.
As somewhat of a workaround, you can configure multiple Messenger instances on one machine to listen to different domains (although this won’‘t scale terribly well due to the overhead of multiple JVM’'s)
I’‘m not sure but I think what he meant by “configure multiple Messenger instances” is that you have to modify the source code. By default when you start an instance of messenger it listens automatically to ports 5222, 5223, and 9090 of the localhost(127.0.0.1). So I guess you’'d have to manually modify each one?