Hosting your own website
- Thread starter admirable
- Start date
- Messages
- 83
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's a bit more to it than just having the server. Have a look at this link - it highlights most of the things you'll need to consider:
http://www.practicalpc.co.uk/webbuilding/start/hostyourownsite.htm
http://www.practicalpc.co.uk/webbuilding/start/hostyourownsite.htm
- Messages
- 1,766
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Really. Don't do it. It's not worth the hassle when you can get good hosting cheap. If you don't know how to do it, then you're best leaving it to people who do and will keep your server up and running. When web hosting is as cheap as it is, there is absolutely no good reason to host your own server from home. The bandwidth you will have on a typical ADSL/cable modem line is not even close to as fast as any reasonable web host and your site will suffer as a result.
I wouldn't bother unless you have some really uber server.
- Messages
- 1,766
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The server isn't the problem as you could easily host a respectable web site on a low end server (like an old pentium 2 or 3), but it's more the bandwidth required by a web site of any popularity, which ADSL or cable connections are simply not designed to handle.
you wouldn't get me hosting anything on a PII :nono:
- Messages
- 2,683
- Name
- stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi
I can't see why you need your own server to host your own website/blog. Even very few webmasters of big forums actually have the hardware at their own premise, they buy(rent) a server from a company.
But if all you are wanting to do is design your own website then the way forward is to use a company like compila to buy a domain name and associate with it some webspace - it will cost you approx £20 per year.
You then need a design package such as dreamweaver. Dreamweaver takes a lot of learning through. Netfusion is a good alternative and is easier to pick up. You then use an ftp program to upload to your space and there you have it.
Sorry if I have misunderstood what you are trying to acheive
stew
I can't see why you need your own server to host your own website/blog. Even very few webmasters of big forums actually have the hardware at their own premise, they buy(rent) a server from a company.
But if all you are wanting to do is design your own website then the way forward is to use a company like compila to buy a domain name and associate with it some webspace - it will cost you approx £20 per year.
You then need a design package such as dreamweaver. Dreamweaver takes a lot of learning through. Netfusion is a good alternative and is easier to pick up. You then use an ftp program to upload to your space and there you have it.
Sorry if I have misunderstood what you are trying to acheive
stew
OP
- Messages
- 11,616
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I hava a website/domain names etc all hosted externally and I'm quite happy with it, it's cheap to run and hassle free. I also have a Dell Poweredge running Windows server 2003 I use as a file server/backup.
I'm just curious as to why/how peeps host their own.
I'm just curious as to why/how peeps host their own.
- Messages
- 11,342
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just noticed you are in Fife, that's were the hosting company I use are! www.ukhost4u.co.uk!!
- Messages
- 245
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just in case you want to know, which you probably do, a package such as XAMPP is the easiest way to setup a home web server. It contains Apache, PHP and MySQL complied together with an easy installer. All you have to do is forward port 80 and away you go.
I have a development server on my home network which runs Ubuntu Server Edition with a custom compilation of Apache, PHP and MySQL. Across my LAN, I can get very fast speeds, however, as soon as I put it as the front-end on my IP, all external connections go very slow due to my 2MB internet package from Virgin Media.
In response to another comment in this thread, I believe smaller, less powerful servers are the way forward. Think of it this way: a host may put 500 accounts on a big powerful server, and only 100 on a smaller, less powerful server. The accounts on each will both load the same and have an equal share of resources, as the loads have been balanced. However, if the small server hosting 100 accounts goes down, that's only 100 domains offline as opposed to 500. See where i'm coming from?
Anyway, enough of my rambling..
Cheers,
Matt
I have a development server on my home network which runs Ubuntu Server Edition with a custom compilation of Apache, PHP and MySQL. Across my LAN, I can get very fast speeds, however, as soon as I put it as the front-end on my IP, all external connections go very slow due to my 2MB internet package from Virgin Media.
In response to another comment in this thread, I believe smaller, less powerful servers are the way forward. Think of it this way: a host may put 500 accounts on a big powerful server, and only 100 on a smaller, less powerful server. The accounts on each will both load the same and have an equal share of resources, as the loads have been balanced. However, if the small server hosting 100 accounts goes down, that's only 100 domains offline as opposed to 500. See where i'm coming from?
Anyway, enough of my rambling..
Cheers,
Matt
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What i tend to do is have two or more high spec'd physical server's that host several virtual servers, each virtual server will then host multiple sites / application's - in the event of a virtual server failing you lose only the sites hosted by that virtual server, and the virtualisation software will restart the failing server automatically. In a large installation we will put multiple physical servers in place to create a virtual farm, then in the event of a physical server failing all of the virtual servers are automatically re-hosted onto another physical server - in effect you only lose the sites for 4-5 minutes.
- Messages
- 1,766
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why not? If your site isn't processor intensive, there's no reason why a PII or PIII wouldn't be more than capable.
- Messages
- 2,622
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My site runs on a 'free' web hosting plan, it's been pretty cheap and reliable so far.
A shared host is enough unless the app you use for your site has fancy features (like reports from lots of data) or if it's badly written.
- Messages
- 245
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
However, you are still liable to hardware failure, taking those virtual machines offline. Unless you are ghosting that server and the virtual machines onto another server, you are looking at big downtime there. That could be avoided with using smaller physical servers.
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can walk in and switch of a physical server and all the virtual servers hosted on that server would be up and running in approx 5 minutes on other servers within the farm automatically without any user intervention.
- Messages
- 245
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh, ok, very nice.
- Messages
- 1,188
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
The age of networks has evolved a lot - as has hardware.
A lot of datacentres/hosting companies now are using 'blade servers'. I.e one chassis may have 20 physical servers on them. Each with their own virtual NIC to the internet.
If you're planning on hosting a massive site with lots of content then usually 1 server isn't enough. You can load balance connections between multiple servers relatively easily these days (some corporate sites I deal with have 64 servers for one URL!).
I enquired into a leased line circuit (2MB in both directions on a 10MB bearer (ie capacity to upgrade if required)). The costs were anything from £800 to £2k per month :nuts: Absolutely crazy!
It's difficult to justify that sort of money unless you have a mega need to bring your hosting 'in house'. I couldn't justify it - though do have a website that runs on our ADSL for people wanting to send files direct to me without them going to a web server that I have to download from too (people with sensitive images etc).
All fun and games really .... !
If anyone wants to go halves or thirds etc - I'm obtaining half a 42U rack in a LINX exchange soon. Thinking of 100MB connection to the web - a block of RIPE addresses and load balancing / server hosting ability etc
A lot of datacentres/hosting companies now are using 'blade servers'. I.e one chassis may have 20 physical servers on them. Each with their own virtual NIC to the internet.
If you're planning on hosting a massive site with lots of content then usually 1 server isn't enough. You can load balance connections between multiple servers relatively easily these days (some corporate sites I deal with have 64 servers for one URL!).
I enquired into a leased line circuit (2MB in both directions on a 10MB bearer (ie capacity to upgrade if required)). The costs were anything from £800 to £2k per month :nuts: Absolutely crazy!
It's difficult to justify that sort of money unless you have a mega need to bring your hosting 'in house'. I couldn't justify it - though do have a website that runs on our ADSL for people wanting to send files direct to me without them going to a web server that I have to download from too (people with sensitive images etc).
All fun and games really .... !
If anyone wants to go halves or thirds etc - I'm obtaining half a 42U rack in a LINX exchange soon. Thinking of 100MB connection to the web - a block of RIPE addresses and load balancing / server hosting ability etc