Web Hosting

Bl8ckr0uter

Anybody here do web hosting? I was thinking about doing this on the side for maybe so local people. I know I could get a range from TW. I was just wondering how difficult this is and would it be worth the time.

Hyper-Me

Its just too hard to beat some of the prices out there right now. Unless you provide something special for cheaper than the big names, which is still doubtful.

You might convince some people to do it, but can you guarantee as much uptime as the big names?

forkvoid

I've been in the web hosting industry for years, serving a very niche market. We are very heavy into sales in order to make money.

Outside of a niche market, it is EXTREMELY competitive and hard to be successful. Even with your niche, it's still hard to attract customers, because you simply cannot compete with the big names offering their huge packages for pennies.

My professional recommendation: don't do it.

But since you'll probably keep thinking about it, here's your new best friend: Web Hosting Talk - The largest, most influential web hosting community on the Internet

dynamik

You can host multiple domains with Host Monster. I have a few clients on my account. You can also use Mosso if you need something more robust (although it's significantly more expensive).

I think I'm going to move my stuff to an OpenBSD VPS with ARP Networks as soon as they finish their DC expansion and can take more customers.

Devilsbane

You are going to need a static ip from your isp, which costs more.

tiersten

Devilsbane wrote: »

You are going to need a static ip from your isp, which costs more.

knwminus mentions getting an IP range from his ISP.

DevilWAH

To set up a web-hosting server all you need is a single static IP and server to run it on.

Once you had a play around it takes a few min to set up a site for some one and then all you have to do is point the domain name at your ip. You can have multiply sites hosted from the same IP address so you don't need loads of static ip's.

But then the problem is insuring you can keep the sites up, so you need server redundancy, and then people are going to want to be able to run server side scripts and all the fancy stuff, so you need to learn how to set that up.

If you have two or three small business in mind with some basic requirements for sites then you may want to offer it to as an extra servicet. But apart from that I don't believe that you would be able to offer the kind of services at the same price that people can get from the big players in the hosting business.

I have set up a few sites for people, but it can soon become more hassle than its worth.

tiersten

DevilWAH wrote: »

To set up a web-hosting server all you need is a single static IP and server to run it on.

Only if you're not using SSL. If you are then you'll need 1 IP per SSL site. (Or not use 443)

earweed

It definitely can turn into a headache. I didn't even try actually hosting but designed a few sites and had them on one of the big providers for dirt cheap. Just maintaining the sites and all the little extras customers wanted turned into a headache.

tiersten

DevilWAH wrote: »

But then the problem is insuring you can keep the sites up, so you need server redundancy, and then people are going to want to be able to run server side scripts and all the fancy stuff, so you need to learn how to set that up.

Set it up and then keep an eye on it as somebody will want to use their forum script from the dawn of time which has a million and one security holes in it. Or have a site that isn't written properly and has SQL injection and other issues.

It'll fall down to you to notice malicious content or other malware on your server since users generally won't notice not unless their site is defaced.

Running a web hosting business isn't something you really can do on the side with little maintenance or work.

MentholMoose

If you're running this out of your house I don't think you will get many customers. Those that you do get will disappear the first time you have a power outage or TW cable goes down and takes 12+ hours to be fixed.

DevilWAH

tiersten wrote: »

Set it up and then keep an eye on it as somebody will want to use their forum script from the dawn of time which has a million and one security holes in it. Or have a site that isn't written properly and has SQL injection and other issues.

It'll fall down to you to notice malicious content or other malware on your server since users generally won't notice not unless their site is defaced.

Running a web hosting business isn't something you really can do on the side with little maintenance or work.

Exactly, which is why I would only suggest it for the simplest of websites. For example the local pub who just want a home page with a few pictures and a link to contact and menu. Running something like this where it is not going to be a major problem if the site is off line for a few hours is not such a hassle. But then as you can only charge a small amount to be competitive its hardly worth it.

I would say its much better to start out designing/maintaining sites for a company, using one of the many well know hosting companies to actual host it. I would Imagen a lot of the hosting companies starter out as companies who helped design sites, and have slowly brought the hosting solution internal.

I can't see how an independent like your self could hope to compete. I can get web hosting with support for £5 a month. How would you be able to compete with that?

ipconfig.all

If you have a fast internet connection speed then it's worth it. Offer different ranges of hosting such as sharepoint etc.

dynamik

DevilWAH wrote: »

To set up a web-hosting server all you need is a single static IP and server to run it on.

That depends, some ISPs will give you a static for personal use. You may need to upgrade to a business account in order to use it for business purposes.

MentholMoose wrote: »

TW cable goes down and takes 12+ hours to be fixed.

Excellent point. The SLA that is currently in place is probably not sufficient for business.

This is why I simply recommend finding a hosting company that'll let you resell their services or host multiple domains. It'd be a good learning experience to setup a non-critical web server at home and experiment with that, but I wouldn't recommend you do that with other businesses' websites.

Bl8ckr0uter

I should have mentioned that I have business class internet and I already have a static IP to my name. My SLA is like 4 hours so they are pretty good about getting my stuff fixed. I also have 10 up/down connection so my connection is ok. What I am probably going to do is host my own website and then see if I feel like doing this on the side. I would need to fortify my own network first before I go into something like that.

dynamik

4 hours per incident? Per year? Even per year, that's less than almost all reputable hosting providers guarantee. "Five nines" uptime only allows ~5.5 minutes of downtime per year.

Services like these from home really aren't feasible on a professional level. What would you do if your place was broken into and the server was stolen? How long would it take you to get back up and running? How would you handle an extended power outage? Do you have redundant power? Redundant cooling? The costs associated with even a mediocre environment far exceed those of simply using another provider that has everything like this in place.

Bl8ckr0uter

dynamik wrote: »

4 hours per incident? Per year? Even per year, that's less than almost all reputable hosting providers guarantee. "Five nines" uptime only allows ~5.5 minutes of downtime per year.

Services like these from home really aren't feasible on a professional level. What would you do if your place was broken into and the server was stolen? How long would it take you to get back up and running? How would you handle an extended power outage? Do you have redundant power? Redundant cooling? The costs associated with even a mediocre environment far exceed those of simply using another provider that has everything like this in place.

I meant that if they have to send it out a truck and stuff.

I guess I see your point. Maybe going into reselling would be best then.

ipconfig.all

A lot of those big fancy companies offer hosting for less prices and most of those fancy big web hosting companies started out small straight from their houses in the 90's. Reselling could be a good idea.

marco71

tiersten wrote: »

Only if you're not using SSL. If you are then you'll need 1 IP per SSL site. (Or not use 443)

That was mandatory in the past...
now it can be defeated by techniques like SNI = Server Name Indication (NameBasedSSLVHostsWithSNI - Httpd Wiki) or SAN (Subject Alternative Names) certificates (Subject Alternative Name | SAN Certificates (UCC Certificate))

tiersten

marco71 wrote: »

That was mandatory in the past...
now it can be defeated by techniques like SNI = Server Name Indication (NameBasedSSLVHostsWithSNI - Httpd Wiki) or SAN (Subject Alternative Names) certificates (Subject Alternative Name | SAN Certificates (UCC Certificate))

From reading the supported clients, I'd say it was still mandatory if you actually want people to be able to use your site though. The list of supported servers and clients is pretty poor. IE only supports it in IE 7+ with Vista and above. It doesn't work at all on XP. Safari needs 3.2.1+ with OS X 10.5.6+ or Vista and above. Again, doesn't work at all on XP.

marco71

tiersten wrote: »

From reading the supported clients, I'd say it was still mandatory if you actually want people to be able to use your site though. The list of supported servers and clients is pretty poor. IE only supports it in IE 7+ with Vista and above. It doesn't work at all on XP. Safari needs 3.2.1+ with OS X 10.5.6+ or Vista and above. Again, doesn't work at all on XP.

Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Netscape have all supported Subject Alternative Names since 2003. Internet Explorer has actually supported them since Windows 98 (Subject Alternative Name Compatibility)

tiersten

marco71 wrote: »

Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Netscape have all supported Subject Alternative Names since 2003. Internet Explorer has actually supported them since Windows 98 (Subject Alternative Name Compatibility)

They don't support SNI however. They'll check the SAN field in the certificate but they don't do the sending of the hostname in the initial handshake which is what you need to do this.