Self Hosting?

IanSmithISA · #1 (**permalink**) 19-10-09, 07:24 AM

Good morning

I need to to upgrade my hosting package to either the HyperV Enterprise (inc plesk) £73 per month or possibly one of the dedicated server packages.

This leads me to ask myself the following question; Should I host my site myself in my office?

The reason that I need to use a package at this level is that my site will have a large database behind it. The site is almost text based apart from the home page so data transfer requirements are not great unless it becomes a big success.

A number of people are now offering 2MB uploads and 1:1 contention on SDSL for around the £99 per month mark. Doing the sums suggests that this would support 50 concurrent users which due to the nature of my site would be quite a lot.

The clear advantages of hosting in my office, is that I am in control of the hardware both in terms of comfortable access rather than RDP and it terms of upgrading it and configuring it.

I'm in my late 40's and have been a developer since I started working and I would have no problems on the technical side of the admin. I used to have a server behind a ADSL connection for demonstration purposes so I do know what I would be letting myself in for!

Would anybody like to through any ideas into the pot.

Bye

Ian

**Dan** · #2 (**permalink**) 19-10-09, 07:43 AM

Hi Ian,

One thing datacenters are fully reliant on now are T-1 connections. 2MB ADSL / SDSL usually isn't sufficent enough which is why large corporations turn to datacenters / webhosting providers.

I know many businesses that colocate for £45 - £60 per month, they have full datacenter access and top speed connections.

I'm just thinking that 2MB SDSL may struggle. How many impressions do you get monthly?

IanSmithISA · #3 (**permalink**) 19-10-09, 08:02 AM

Good morning

Currently we have virtually none!

The site is a web based front end of an app rather than a "web site", typically a user would download 300KBytes over their whole session which would take about 1 minute.

If I were to do this I would drop this is 200KBytes. This is where I got the max of 50 concurrent users from, this would translate into a very successful business.

It would also be very easy to load balance across multiple 2Mbit lines at the app level.

Bye

Ian

Hexosphere · #4 (**permalink**) 19-10-09, 08:05 AM

Hi Ian,

That's not a bad price for the connection/contention ratio, if only i could get SDSL in the back of beyond lol.

It certainly seems like a feasable idea in terms of ease of use, as you say, in terms of hardware you can create the system you want, not to mention having the data close (easier backups, esp for offsite storage).

The downside to it though, is that you will have to manage the security and integrity of the connection, and if looking for something such as point of failure, the single SDSL line would be it, unless you looked into something such as bonded SDSL - multiple lines to create a bigger connection, but provides better failover rate. You would also loose the technical support of a team of skilled engineers, but if you don't use them then it's not so much a big issue. Even at a 2MB incoming connection, if someone decided they didn't like your site for one reason or another, something like a DDOS attack you would have trouble fending it off, and would take quite a sophisticated setup, including a router, and possibly a layer 3 switch to handle the data at the network level, ie it can segregate the Web Farm network from the office network.

Just a couple of things to note, though I'm sure there are more.

Hexo

**Dan** · #5 (**permalink**) 20-10-09, 08:03 AM

It should work, but is that 2MB line speed or actual throughput?

**Administrator** · #6 (**permalink**) 20-10-09, 09:51 PM

Hi Ian,

I don't see much logic behind hosting your important website in office. We are here to help you with every situation and the problem you have with your existing VPS has been rectified now.

Cost of hosting a server in office will be much more than £100 per month. Forget about the cost of maintenance and Man hours you will put behind that server.

As I said, we are coming up with some high spec low cost servers in few days and you will get my email once these servers arrive. I am planning to sell off these first stock of 200 servers within a week and then order another stock of 200 servers.

Caroline · #7 (**permalink**) 21-10-09, 12:43 AM

It is better to choose a hosting package with a web hosting provider instead choosing self hosting as you will have to spend most of your time for hosting related issues and due to this, you won't be able to get enough time to work on your website

Also, if you consider a self hosting option, it won't be reliable enough as compared to a paid hosting option. Hence, I would suggest you to choose a paid hosting option for better reliability

Rupert · #8 (**permalink**) 21-10-09, 10:47 AM

Yes, it is always better to look for a web hosting provider that will monitor and manage your hosting account and upgrade your account requirements as it reaches its capacity, so that you can focus on your core business. The more cost you pay for hosting, equally the more advanced features and control you will be offered.

Chilton · #9 (**permalink**) 22-10-09, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert

Yes, it is always better to look for a web hosting provider that will monitor and manage your hosting account and upgrade your account requirements as it reaches its capacity, so that you can focus on your core business. The more cost you pay for hosting, equally the more advanced features and control you will be offered.

Looking for a host that offers managed web hosting and monitoring service is fine but, you cannot expect the host himself to upgrade the plan on his own. The hosts would notify you when you reach 80% of the allotted resources,you can then ask the host to upgrade the plan.

**WH-Garry9** · #10 (**permalink**) 23-10-09, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilton

Looking for a host that offers managed web hosting and monitoring service is fine but, you cannot expect the host himself to upgrade the plan on his own. The hosts would notify you when you reach 80% of the allotted resources,you can then ask the host to upgrade the plan.

The professional hosting provider will always send you a notification if you use more than 80% resources allotted to your hosting package or server. The notification is generally sent via Email on the registered email address and if necessary, you will also receive a call

A professional hosting provider will never upgrade your hosting package without your confirmation. Also, if you would like to upgrade the hosting package or server, you need to pay the applicable charges for it after which the hosting package or server is upgraded

Chilton · #11 (**permalink**) 26-10-09, 07:51 AM

Oh yes I missed out on that,inorder to upgrade you need to inform the host and only after you make the payment,you are upgraded to the next server.

Most of the professional web hosting providers usually take the difference in the prices of the two packages.Am not sure what WHUK does.It would be better if someone from the WHUK crew can state on this.

**WH-Garry9** · #12 (**permalink**) 26-10-09, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilton

Oh yes I missed out on that,inorder to upgrade you need to inform the host and only after you make the payment,you are upgraded to the next server.

Most of the professional web hosting providers usually take the difference in the prices of the two packages.Am not sure what WHUK does.It would be better if someone from the WHUK crew can state on this.

Yes, you will only have to pay the price difference between the 2 hosting packages if you would like to upgrade your hosting package at WHUK

However, this is not valid if you would like to upgrade your dedicated server.

You can contact our billing department at any point of time if you would like to upgrade your hosting package or server.

Chilton · #13 (**permalink**) 27-10-09, 08:43 AM

Thanks a lot Garry to bringing this to notice. We usually take this point for granted and here is where the misunderstanding begins.Users usually blame the host for not clarifying this. Am sure the point you've stated here would help users to clear this point.

**WH-Garry9** · #14 (**permalink**) 27-10-09, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilton

Thanks a lot Garry to bringing this to notice. We usually take this point for granted and here is where the misunderstanding begins.Users usually blame the host for not clarifying this. Am sure the point you've stated here would help users to clear this point.

You are most

We definitely provide our customers with the information they need as we always believe in long term business relationship with our customers and we also believe that a hosting provider should provide all the information clients need as this ensures reliability of the hosting provider

Pete · #15 (**permalink**) 28-10-09, 08:50 AM

What are your measure to deal with risk and crash issues, if you are in total control of all the issues then its okay

It is always better to hire a professional team of experts for doing this and get re leaved from maintaining the server and concentrate on the shear business. The people at the data-center/ web host will take care of your server 24x7