| Author |
 Topic  |
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
 Posted - 23 October 2003 : 07:47:24
|
I know there has been plenty of these discussions in the past, but I just need a reality check...
I'm thinking about buying a dedicated box and the new MS Windows Server Web Edition (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/web.mspx) to host some non critical website projects of my own at home.
I figured its going to save me at least $200/year in the long run.
I have a DSL connection with 256kbps upload, which I tested several times and it usually comes in between 215kbps and 256.
Do you think this is worth trying? I wouldn't of considered trying this before the low priced web edition was introduced. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 13:11:11
|
It all depends on how many connections you will have and the amount of bandwidth that will be used for uploading content, especially if there are a lot of images on your web server being hosted for the web pages and/or forums.
I had 256 DSL service and hosted a site, but it really wasn't to my satisfaction. I currently run a Windows 2000 Server from my home on Cable and it runs really good, but that is probably because of my service area. Your area may be different.
Some major things to consider is your IP address. You probably have a dynamic address so you will want to consider getting a lite version of a DNS through a company I highly recommend http://www.dns2go.com
You will also want to be security conscious which means firewalls, active anti-virus, critical updates, the whole shabang. It can really be a disaster if you are not diligent about your involvement and constant monitoring of your web server.
The other thing to consider is your database type. If you are using SQL Server then be prepared to shell out about 10-20 thousand dollars for the web access license. Just something to be aware of. |
 |
 |
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 13:12:09
|
| ooooops, one last thing. Most DSL and Cable providers have a statement in their Terms Of Service that disallow the hosting of a web site. |
|
|
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 17:32:29
|
Well the good news...
a. I can get a static IP for the DSL account.
b. They specifically state they allow web hosting. :)
c. I use MySQL for all my databases.
d. I currently run Zone Alarm and use a Linksys router to
forward http requests to the box I want to use the webserver.
I think I may do some testing using my exisiting box and Windows 2000 Pro before I shell out anything. |
|
Edited by - seven on 23 October 2003 17:33:33 |
|
|
|
Classicmotorcycling
Development Team Leader
Australia
2084 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 17:56:44
|
I Have ADSL to host Classic Motorcycling Australia on a 512/128 link. The ISP does not charge for back-channeling, and they even gave me an extra 8 IP addresses, so I hos a few others as well..
So not all mind if you host your own web site.
|
Cheers,
David Greening |
|
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 18:47:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by seven
Well the good news...
a. I can get a static IP for the DSL account.
b. They specifically state they allow web hosting. :)
c. I use MySQL for all my databases.
d. I currently run Zone Alarm and use a Linksys router to
forward http requests to the box I want to use the webserver.
I think I may do some testing using my exisiting box and Windows 2000 Pro before I shell out anything.
Well in that case I'd go for it. Everything seems to be in your favor. Heck, they'd probably even increase your upload for a small price each month but 256k should be just fine to start out with. One thing I would consider getting is a good UPS to plug the server in to, as well as the router and modem, in case of short power outages. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
|
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 19:14:25
|
Try this out:
<<<removed>>>
(This will only work for a limited time)
Post some feedback on how long this page takes to load. This is a test to see how it works. |
|
Edited by - seven on 24 October 2003 00:38:01 |
|
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 19:18:42
|
Side note: I just caught my cat chewing on my routers wireless antennas. This can't be good...  |
|
|
|
|
redbrad0
Advanced Member
USA
3725 Posts |
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 19:35:11
|
ok... slow. I'll wait for more feedback before I scrap the whole idea.
quote:
Originally posted by redbrad0
I counted to 14 before it was fully done from the second i clicked on the link
|
|
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 19:35:12
|
Image2 was pretty slow at loading.
quote:
Side note: I just caught my cat chewing on my routers wireless antennas. This can't be good...
No, not good, perhaps you should feed them a bit more  |
|
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 19:37:57
|
it is an extra large image that I typically wouldn't have something that large, roughly how long did it take to load?
quote:
Originally posted by HuwR
Image2 was pretty slow at loading.
quote:
Side note: I just caught my cat chewing on my routers wireless antennas. This can't be good...
No, not good, perhaps you should feed them a bit more
|
|
|
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 20:23:14
|
| Image 2 was slower, but it was pretty big. 270kb. To tell you the truth I think it is plenty of speed, unless you plan on hosting multiple large images for people. I'd go for it. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
Edited by - sr_erick on 23 October 2003 20:27:44 |
|
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 20:26:04
|
| BTW, about 14 seconds here as well. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
|
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 20:38:52
|
Ok, here's the kicker...
This page is running on a Win2K, PII 200mhz Gateway w/ 64mb ram. If I swap it out with the Win2K3, P4 2.0GHZ Xeon w/ 512mb Ram, will I see a speed difference or is this completely dependent on bandwidth?
I think I'm going to move 1 website as a test for a few weeks and see how it goes. Most of my webpages are 35-50kb max with images. So if you do the math... It should take roughly 3 seconds for a 50kb web page.
|
|
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 23 October 2003 : 21:14:22
|
| If you move it to the P4 with those specs your site will definately increase in performance. There are a lot of factors into making a web site fast, it is not solely dependent on bandwidth. |
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
