I'm starting to see this, or maybe it's always existed, but it seems like bigger sites are hosting their images on external servers. I've even seen some sites use Flickr as the host for all of their images. I guess for Flickr that means you have a guarenteed image CMS, but I really don't see that as why Flickr was created.
I'm sure there are bandwidth advantages, and maybe that's the main reason. Is there a point where the traffic gets so high that moving images off site would improve load times and sever loads? Is it a worthwhile endeavor for smaller sites? I'm curious to see what the thoughts are on this trend.
Anyone aware of a hosting company with all of their hardware in Canada who offers in their basic accounts the ability to host multiple domains without using sub-domains or sub-folders.
I want to host several domains with individual administration and security so that a bad script or hack of one wont affect the other domains.
if it is better to host two related websites on single host or on separate servers?
currently we are hosting three related websites on 3 separate webhosts. one in US, another in UK & another in Nepal. can anyone please explain if is it better to use single webhost?
I know most webhosts run Apache and it seems to server their needs very well. However LiteSpeed is new and fast, assuming you have relatively static content. At least that's what I've heard. Beyond this, I don't know much, though a year ago I worked with a guy who hosted an iPhone software repository (smallish files, huge demand), and he put LiteSpeed on the servers to deal with the load. Running at 30+ Mbps, with spikes above 60, the server never went above 0.2 load as far as I remember, and it was just a 2GB Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86 GHz machine.
I'm setting up a new VPS, and I have the option of a number of Linux distributions to choose from. There's all the usual suspects: CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, SuSE, etc. Why would I pick one over the others? I've used CentOS before, but I'm open to trying other distros. There's been lots of fuss over Ubuntu on the desktop, but why would I choose it for a server?
I've been leaning toward going with WestHost for a medium-sized project. They offer VPS without root access, though, and much of the advice in the "HOW TO: Secure and Optimize your VPS" thread requires running commands as root.
My experience has all been with colocating my own servers in a data center, with everything accessible when I log in as root (though of course I ordinarily logged in as a normal user instead). This was three or four years ago, and a lot has changed since then.
Can someone who's up on this stuff please describe the pros and cons of non-root VPS service such as WestHost provides? Cost seems to be one advantage :-} and I imagine it's wise for inexpert Webmasters not to have a completely wide-open system. Are there other pluses to non-root VPS that aren't as obvious?
Most importantly, what kind of operations will I not be able to carry out if I go with WestHost or a similar non-root VPS host? Can I reasonably expect the hosting service to perform the kind of locking-down described in WHT's tutorial on VPS security?
I'll be asking similar questions of WestHost's support people but thought it would be a good idea to ask people without a stake in either the root-access or the non-root way of doing things.
Is it possible to get a rough description of the benefits of a VPS host over a shared host?
1) Support. Should support with a VPS host be better than my current shared provider? They offer live chat and a ticketing system. Tickets can take hours to get a response, live chat minutes but often there are no support operaters to answer the question.
2) Uptime. Will uptime be improved upon? My current host tends to range from 97%-99% in a month. Importantly will it suffer from soft outages where parts of the account are down (such as MySQL or http)?
3) Traffic. What levels of traffic will base VPS packages handle? Will a few semi active forums (say max 20 users on 3 forums) be manageable alongside several PHP/MySQL galleries and several hundred normal PHP pages?
4) Load. Does the load usage of other customers on the same server effect your account in the same way it does in a shared environment? Can one user bog down the entire server for everyone else?
5) Management. How much control is given to a user in managed VPS environment. Can you restart OS yourself (and do things like edit the firewall blocks)? Do you have to keep the OS (Linux in my case) and things like Apache and PHP up to date yourself or is that done for you.
6) Usage Policies. Are the usage policies in place in a VPS environment (limiting the amount of CPU process and memory you can use). If yes are they higher than in a shared environment.
Is it possible to get a little more on a few of the hosts I've looked at (if possible I'd like to be below the $50 a month mark).
Is it a case of picking any of these and getting a similar support and hosting service?
WiredTree seems to offer a decent compromise of price against value. Given that my site is still pretty small at the moment, would the smallest JaguarPC package be a better fit (so I'm not spending money for specs I'm not using).
Unfortunately disk space is a fairly big factor as the site uses quite a few image and small video files (I'm using something like 2GB at the moment but this would increase fairly rapidly over time). Does that mean a shared host is better suited for my needs?
I see Site5 have a 5 dollar deal on their homepage, but I don't know if it's any good. I hear from a lot of people to get a reseller account if you plan to make a lot of websites. It's more expensive than the 5 dollar plan with less bandwidth and storage, so there got to be something to it. What are the benefits of a reseller account compared to that 5 dollar deal plan?
As far as I see each hosting company uses various methods to make customers buy their domains. They can provide free domains, free Fantastico scripts, website building software, templates etc. I am planning to launch my hosting company really soon. Also I think to include free internet marketing services in some hosting packages. I am just wondering if such internet marketing program can be considered as a significant competitive advantage stimulating customers to make a purchase?
I know to some of you this may sound like a totally silly question. But I would like to know what the main advantages are if you have a VPS instead of a shared reseller hosting.
I notice some of the basic VPS packages give you 512MB of memory. Other than that, the rest of the stats seem to be along the lines of what you might get in an advanced reseller hosting plan such as one available from Reseller Zoom.
I am looking into VPS as a dedicated server is a little over my budget, however, I am not entirely clear what makes VPS better.
I have been running 1 site on my VPS for some time, but there is still a lot of things I don't understand 100%. Now I want to add another site to the VPS, but keep the sites as separate as possible, and I have no idea how to accomplish this.
Lets say my first domain is football.com. This means I have these settings:
I got 3 IP's: x.x.x.1, x.x.x.2 and a new one x.x.x.9
My hostname is host.football.com (x.x.x.1) My site is www(dot)football.com (x.x.x.1) Nameserver NS1.football.com (x.x.x.1) Nameserver NS2.football.com (x.x.x.2) Reverse DNS on x.x.x.1 to host.football.com Exim running on x.x.x.1
Lets say my second domain is water.com. It's no problem using WHM and run this site on x.x.x.9, but there is a lot of references to football.com (nameservers, hostname and probably emails).
Is there anyway to keep the sites separate? I'm thinking that I need to request 2 new IP's, run NS1.water.com and NS2.water.com on these. I don't know if I can get a host.water.com with reverse DNS, and I guess emails will still be from x.x.x.1.
Has anyone here gotten any of the Xen images from jailtime.org to work on CentOS? I've figured out what the heck I'm doing since my last question [url], but they still won't boot. And the more I Google it, the more people I find asking the same questions.
It looks like they're depending on a bunch of non-standard images in their initrd, and, unless we have some of these unknown modules, the darned thing won't boot. Mine ends up failing like this:
Code: NET: Registered protocol family 1 NET: Registered protocol family 17 Using IPI No-Shortcut mode XENBUS: Device with no driver: device/vbd/2049 XENBUS: Device with no driver: device/vbd/2050 XENBUS: Device with no driver: device/vif/0 md: Autodetecting RAID arrays. md: autorun ... md: ... autorun DONE. VFS: Cannot open root device "sda1" or unknown-block(0,0) Please append a correct "root=" boot option Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) The xen.conf for this particular VM:
Code: # This points ta real Dom0 kernel! kernel = "/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-53.1.13.el5xen" memory = "256" name = "Ubuntu-Matt" vif = [ 'mac=00:01:02:03:04:07, bridge=xenbr0, vifname=vif1.0' ] # Set the disk... disk = ['file:/home/matt/vms/ubuntu-7.04/ubuntu.7-04.img,sda1,w', 'file://home/matt/vms/ubuntu-7.04/ubuntu.swap,sda2,w'] root = "/dev/sda1 ro" This is driving me bonkers... Has anyone gotten these to work? Would I be better off just installing from an ISO?
I'm more of an application programming guy than network/internet guy so excuse any ignorance on my part.
I am currently using shared hosting on an IIS server.
I running SMF Forums and a business on the IIS server. I have a payment system that I've programmed tied into the MySQL SMF database. This payment system uses ASP.net. I'm a .Net programmer. SMF is also being currently ran on the IIS server, and it does ok.
I'm really wanting to start running my forums on a separate Unix Server.
So my question is, can i run my ASP.net scripts on my IIS server that access the MySQL database on a separate Apache server? The Apache server and IIS server would have different domains (I'm guessing that'd be required).
I think this is possible, but wondering what others think. All I should need to do is change some connection strings on my Web.config on my IIS server to point to the new SQL databases.
I have a server with lots of sites and about a hundred MySQl apps. All of them are configured to talk to localhost and work fine. But I'm trying to move the MySQL off to a separate box to increase performance.
So since everything was configured to localhost my idea was rather than change that what I would do is set up an SSH tunnel to the new server running MySQL. Seems like that should work, but it doesn't.
I set everything up on the new computer. I shut down mysql copied all the files over, started MySQL on the new server. Everything tested fine.
Then I established the ssh tunnel and everything looks good, but the applications just didn't see it. I did some experiments and if I set it to 127.0.0.2 it works, but not on 127.0.0.1.
I am setting up an internal network for management only. So, assign an IP for the second NIC, and activate it, but it seems not working. I have tried this
#ifconfig eth1 192.168.2.14 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.2.255 #ifconfig eth1 up
checking dmesg, it shows the NIC is up # dmesg ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready tg3: eth1: Link is up at 100 Mbps, full duplex. tg3: eth1: Flow control is off for TX and off for RX.
checking routing table seeing the 192.168.2.x routed through eth1 # route -e 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default reserve1.somename 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
Repeat those steps for other boxes, but when pinging, all return errors # ping 192.168.2.20 PING 192.168.2.20 (192.168.2.20) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.2.14 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.2.14 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.2.14 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
Before I went to register with GoDaddy, I looked back at some web hosts I was considering. Some real good ones include free domains. What are advantages to bundling a domain with the hosting package? Is setup usually quicker? What if, at the end of a yearly contract, I decide I want to host my site with a different company? I certainly hope domain names are transferrable around the expiration period.
I plan to build huge image gallery, using lighttpd to server these images. It would be easiest for me to have all these files (more than 1 000 000) in one directory? Is it ok?
I have no idea, if this can cause any problems. Should I part my files into several directories, does it make serving better/faster?
