If I have a website called www.reality-agents.com, how will I create
individual hostnames like bill.reality-agents.com or
manish.reality-agents.com that would share the same codebase?
Both dave.reality-agents.com and bill.reality-agents.com should go to the
same pre-decided aspx page and finally the contents rendered would entirely
depend upon the url that is requested, meaning the contents of
dave.reality-agents.net would  differ from bill.reality-agents.net.
If I were to build the site on MCMS how will go about acheiving
this? Any help would be appreciated.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Sameer,

check the map channel to host header feature in MCMS.

Cheers,
Stefan


"Sameer" <Sameer@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:99CCDC9C-DD0F-465F-BDF9-27BC19FABF87@microsoft.com...
> If I have a website called www.reality-agents.com, how will I create
> individual hostnames like bill.reality-agents.com or
> manish.reality-agents.com that would share the same codebase?
> Both dave.reality-agents.com and bill.reality-agents.com should go to the
> same pre-decided aspx page and finally the contents rendered would
entirely
> depend upon the url that is requested, meaning the contents of
> dave.reality-agents.net would  differ from bill.reality-agents.net.
>         If I were to build the site on MCMS how will go about acheiving
> this? Any help would be appreciated.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Be careful with mapping host headers to channel names. I had built a
site with a single code base and 5 different channels under the root
channel. I used host header mapping to make 5 different web sites 1 for
each channel each website having its own unique URL. It worked
beautifully. I had intended to scale this to having upwards of 30 to 50
channels. After consulting with a Microsoft escalation engineer for
CMS, I found 2 things.

1. Performance will be much slower due to using host header mapping
2. Microsoft recommends that you have no more then 15 channels directly
under the root channel.
see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...tarted_suzu.asp

So if you intend to have many (read more then 15) this could cause you
some problems. However there are other solutions.

I created a single landing page that all urls would go to. This page
would do its own mapping by looking at the URL and getting the correct
channel for the URL from a database table, then redirecting to the
correct channel. I got around the 15 channels under the root channel by
having intermediate channels. The channel structure looked like:

Channels -> FC -> Website1
-> Website2 ...
-> website 299
According to Microsoft once you are under a channel below the root you
can have up to 300 objects in a container, so for channels that is 300
channels.

This solution has worked well for me, I now have over 16 different web
sites each with its own url and only 1 IIS website and codebase running
them.

Chris Cuthbert





Stefan [MSFT] wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Sameer,
>
> check the map channel to host header feature in MCMS.
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan
>
>
> "Sameer" <Sameer@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:99CCDC9C-DD0F-465F-BDF9-27BC19FABF87@microsoft.com... 
create[vbcol=seagreen] 
to the[vbcol=seagreen] 
> entirely 
acheiving[vbcol=seagreen] 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Chris,

1) this only affects non MCMS managed content and not MCMS content.
2) this only affects non MCMS managed content and not MCMS content.

With other words if there are only MCMS web sites on this IIS server, igorne
these statements.
The problem is that every request coming in to IIS is first checked  against
the MCMS database if it is a MCMS manged item. Even requests to non MCMS web
sites will be checked and potentially slowed down.
If the request IS a MCMS item, then this is what is expected and will have
identical performance.

If only MCMS managed sites are on this server the base recommendation for
200-300 items per channel do apply (including the root channel).

So this limits are only recommended to ensure that MCMS is a good neighbor
to non-MCMS manged sites.
For typical MCMS server installation: just ignore these recommendations!

Finally you should to do load testing to your site anyway - independend if
it is a MCMS managed site or not before going to production.

Cheers,
Stefan.

"ccuthbert" <nsp_skier@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106602725.501588.212230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Be careful with mapping host headers to channel names. I had built a
> site with a single code base and 5 different channels under the root
> channel. I used host header mapping to make 5 different web sites 1 for
> each channel each website having its own unique URL. It worked
> beautifully. I had intended to scale this to having upwards of 30 to 50
> channels. After consulting with a Microsoft escalation engineer for
> CMS, I found 2 things.
>
> 1. Performance will be much slower due to using host header mapping
> 2. Microsoft recommends that you have no more then 15 channels directly
> under the root channel.
> see:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...uz
u.asp
>
> So if you intend to have many (read more then 15) this could cause you
> some problems. However there are other solutions.
>
> I created a single landing page that all urls would go to. This page
> would do its own mapping by looking at the URL and getting the correct
> channel for the URL from a database table, then redirecting to the
> correct channel. I got around the 15 channels under the root channel by
> having intermediate channels. The channel structure looked like:
>
> Channels -> FC -> Website1
> -> Website2 ...
> -> website 299
> According to Microsoft once you are under a channel below the root you
> can have up to 300 objects in a container, so for channels that is 300
> channels.
>
> This solution has worked well for me, I now have over 16 different web
> sites each with its own url and only 1 IIS website and codebase running
> them.
>
> Chris Cuthbert
>
>
>
>
>
> Stefan [MSFT] wrote: 
> create 
> to the 
> acheiving 
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Stefan,

Interesting reply. I spoke with a Microsoft escalation engineer and
that is not what I was told. I was specifically warned against using
host header mapping, and I was also given the limit of 15 channels
under the root and 300 objects in any container regardless of whether
there were only MCMS sites, which is the case in my system. All sites
in my system on the server are MCMS managed sites. The MCMS
documentation: Performing Administrative Tasks -> MCMS Performance
Considerations -> Best Practices for MCMS Site Performance states:

Site Manager best practices
Limit the depth of container hierarchy.
Limit the number of containers under the root node. (For example,
channels should not have more than 10 to 15 immediate children
containers.)
Limit the items in a container (to about 300).
Distribute items over multiple containers, to ensure that the number of
items in each container does not exceed 300.

While I certainly would defer to you, you've have helped me with many
problems I have had in the past, I did find that performance was
measureably better after I followed the advice of the escalation
engineers. I agree 100% you should always do load testing as this is
the only method to ensure you have an accurate idea of the load
capability of your site(s).

The method I am using was reccomended to me by the microsoft engineers
after multiple conference calls over a 1 week period.
As always thanks for you reply
Chris

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Chris,

I'm also an Escalation Engineer.

Would be nice if you could send me the service request number you had and
the name of the EE to my email address: webmaster@stefan-gossner.de

Cheers,
Stefan.

"ccuthbert" <nsp_skier@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107182343.286759.239010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Stefan,
>
> Interesting reply. I spoke with a Microsoft escalation engineer and
> that is not what I was told. I was specifically warned against using
> host header mapping, and I was also given the limit of 15 channels
> under the root and 300 objects in any container regardless of whether
> there were only MCMS sites, which is the case in my system. All sites
> in my system on the server are MCMS managed sites. The MCMS
> documentation: Performing Administrative Tasks -> MCMS Performance
> Considerations -> Best Practices for MCMS Site Performance states:
>
> Site Manager best practices
> Limit the depth of container hierarchy.
> Limit the number of containers under the root node. (For example,
> channels should not have more than 10 to 15 immediate children
> containers.)
> Limit the items in a container (to about 300).
> Distribute items over multiple containers, to ensure that the number of
> items in each container does not exceed 300.
>
> While I certainly would defer to you, you've have helped me with many
> problems I have had in the past, I did find that performance was
> measureably better after I followed the advice of the escalation
> engineers. I agree 100% you should always do load testing as this is
> the only method to ensure you have an accurate idea of the load
> capability of your site(s).
>
> The method I am using was reccomended to me by the microsoft engineers
> after multiple conference calls over a 1 week period.
> As always thanks for you reply
> Chris
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]