Hi All.
I'm posting this to try and address what I think are some rather important issues that exist with an old thread (hardware-server-configuration/21965-running-server-home.html).
Clearly the majority of the advice here suggests that you should not run serious hosting from home /home office. Is this just vested interests? Look at the posters. Most are from people connected to hosting companies, so that's exactly what you'd expect. Fair enough. Also and with respect, some of the people asking the question seem inexperienced in IT infrastructure. That's the point of asking for help at a forum. I think that this is skewing the advice.
I can offer the following experiences:-
1. I've been running a (admittedly) couple of smallish sites from my home office successfully for three years. They are dynamic sites with back end databases. I also host a test site, dev site and the email server.
2. Not been hacked once but I have a DMZ protecting the server.
3. I only monitor the last 30 days, but I achieve 99.9% uptime over that period. This is not a guess, but is monitored by software. There are posters in this thread that advertise the same uptime in their sigs.
4. What are the real uptime figures for hosting companies? Are they even published? Do they include scheduled maintenance? I read a post about a mainstream hoster that shut down for a week to upgrade their UPS system. If uptime was important to all of them, there would be a system of refunds /credits for missing their SLAs. I've yet to see an advert for that.
5. I get root access, and need to run stuff other than just a bit of Apache and PHP.
6. It's cheap. A server of the same spec will cost me £50 /month. That's 50 pounds not dollars. Admittedly there's unlimited traffic, but see point 11 below...
7. It's very flexible. If I need some additional disk space for data transfer /storage etc., I can do something a simple as plug in a 1 TB USB drive.
8. I am responsible for the system and it's operation. So, I cannot be drawn into a situation where the hosting company says it's my fault, and I think that it's their fault. Another example from other forums – server keeps rebooting so hosting company blames the customer for messing with the OS. Customer says he hasn't. Situation continued for months with unbelievable downtime.
9. No contract lock in if you need to change something.
10. Most of the hosting providers for the tech savy do allow customers to run servers and do not block any ports.
11. I have a 850 kbps upstream ADSL connection. This can support the users I currently expect as remember that if you control your graphics, that's equivalent to 15 concurrent 56k modems. Also factor in that most images are cached at the browser level. Note (this is important), this means many more concurrent users as not everyone will be downloading at absolutely exactly the same time.
12. Many many small companies run internet facing services from their offices. How is this any different? Not every SME hosts their IT infrastructure externally. I know someone who works for a small company that monitors an incredible list of clients and they monitor from their office.
I'm not trying to slam the hosting providers. This is not meant to be a rant (even though it could be taken that way). When my business takes off and starts threatening Google, I'll probably need to move to a provider. But it'll cost me a lot. The point I'm trying make is that the host@home question is a lot more complex than “just don't do it”. I thought long and hard about it. I hope that my successful experience leads others to consider this option seriously.
I'm posting this to try and address what I think are some rather important issues that exist with an old thread (hardware-server-configuration/21965-running-server-home.html).
Clearly the majority of the advice here suggests that you should not run serious hosting from home /home office. Is this just vested interests? Look at the posters. Most are from people connected to hosting companies, so that's exactly what you'd expect. Fair enough. Also and with respect, some of the people asking the question seem inexperienced in IT infrastructure. That's the point of asking for help at a forum. I think that this is skewing the advice.
I can offer the following experiences:-
1. I've been running a (admittedly) couple of smallish sites from my home office successfully for three years. They are dynamic sites with back end databases. I also host a test site, dev site and the email server.
2. Not been hacked once but I have a DMZ protecting the server.
3. I only monitor the last 30 days, but I achieve 99.9% uptime over that period. This is not a guess, but is monitored by software. There are posters in this thread that advertise the same uptime in their sigs.
4. What are the real uptime figures for hosting companies? Are they even published? Do they include scheduled maintenance? I read a post about a mainstream hoster that shut down for a week to upgrade their UPS system. If uptime was important to all of them, there would be a system of refunds /credits for missing their SLAs. I've yet to see an advert for that.
5. I get root access, and need to run stuff other than just a bit of Apache and PHP.
6. It's cheap. A server of the same spec will cost me £50 /month. That's 50 pounds not dollars. Admittedly there's unlimited traffic, but see point 11 below...
7. It's very flexible. If I need some additional disk space for data transfer /storage etc., I can do something a simple as plug in a 1 TB USB drive.
8. I am responsible for the system and it's operation. So, I cannot be drawn into a situation where the hosting company says it's my fault, and I think that it's their fault. Another example from other forums – server keeps rebooting so hosting company blames the customer for messing with the OS. Customer says he hasn't. Situation continued for months with unbelievable downtime.
9. No contract lock in if you need to change something.
10. Most of the hosting providers for the tech savy do allow customers to run servers and do not block any ports.
11. I have a 850 kbps upstream ADSL connection. This can support the users I currently expect as remember that if you control your graphics, that's equivalent to 15 concurrent 56k modems. Also factor in that most images are cached at the browser level. Note (this is important), this means many more concurrent users as not everyone will be downloading at absolutely exactly the same time.
12. Many many small companies run internet facing services from their offices. How is this any different? Not every SME hosts their IT infrastructure externally. I know someone who works for a small company that monitors an incredible list of clients and they monitor from their office.
I'm not trying to slam the hosting providers. This is not meant to be a rant (even though it could be taken that way). When my business takes off and starts threatening Google, I'll probably need to move to a provider. But it'll cost me a lot. The point I'm trying make is that the host@home question is a lot more complex than “just don't do it”. I thought long and hard about it. I hope that my successful experience leads others to consider this option seriously.
