| 4:23 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No, I don't have a dedicated server.
Why would you need a dedicated server? Is bandwidth, disk space, server load or something else the problem?
| 4:29 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My cuz's website has about 1.2million page views a month... I helped him with the optimiziation and the stats tracking so i know. Anyway, he has a Pentium 4 1.7Ghz w/ 1GB RAm... This kind of traffic is not a lot but his server crashes often.
In my opinion, if you want to like... surive another traffic upsurge. You first need to optimize the program (if you write them yourself) or to upgrade the package (if you are buying it from some companies like vBulletin).
Mostly it's the bad PHP/ASP programs and inefficent mySQL queries that kill server performance. In my cuz case, it's all the dynamic image manipulation. He should have cached all the results, avoiding repeating the script for the same result. I'm not an expert, but I have seen enough common problems to give this conclusion.
If you only serve static pages with simple graphics, then i heard 10 million people can come in a day and your server should still survive.
| 4:37 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
3000 plus monthly for two years using FREE servers! (Freeserve and Wanadoo) You get no ads, and need to dial up for 1 second every three months to stay "live".
Not ideal but these sites were hobby sites, untill adsense made it easy to stick ads on. Cant move now since most have loads of inbound links, good search positioning, and 5 and 6 page rank!
And I am mean!
| 4:45 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I use basic NT hosting for my smaller sites at a cost of about £25 per site per year and I use UNIX hosting for sites that use PHP and databases at a cost of about £35 per site per year. I think my total costs for all my sites is around £300. All accounts have 40GB bandwidth and in 3 years I have only once had a site down.
40GB is a helluvalot. If you are using anywhere near that on one site you must have a shedload of visitors or a load of ignorant bots.
IMO Virtual is the way to go if you have 10 or 15 sites. OTOH if you are running a huge network it might be an idea to go the dedicated route.
| 4:46 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm making about 1,800 a month and am on a shared server. I'm in the process of moving onto a dedicated server, no way I want to be on a shared system when next Christmas rolls around. Its not just about how much traffic your site is getting, its the traffic of everyone else on the shared system. I feel that I lost revenue in December during peak hours because of slow response times.
I will be paying about 240 dollars a month for an AMD dual core, 2 GB ram, 1 terabyte of bandwidth, Windows 2003 Server and 30 domains. BTW, my sites are database intensive/processor intensive resource hogs, I don't think everyone needs this much power.
I also plan on expanding my site offerings and building a couple of mini-sites. I am growing my profits each year, so I see the move to a dedicated server as a natural progression. 2006 is the start of my third year in affiliate marketing and adsense.
| 4:49 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Not so sure about Freeserve and Wanadoo but I thought it is against TOS of free web servers to run your own ads. I am not sure whether Adsense allows their ads to be put on free servers.
Furthermore, nowadays it is hard to find site hosted on free servers that is ranked well in major search engines.
Your ROI must be very high since it is free.
| 4:56 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
3 dedicated servers run my sites, each site with a dedicated IP. Two machines in the states, one in Europe. Each is cross backed-up and DNS fail-safed to the other machines.
I don't want anyone elses site on "my" boxes. Plus I like to be able to root in and change or install software as and when I like without having memory or hard disk etc restrictions (which you get on VPS's).
Total cost for all three : about $325/month. Hosting is cheap these days.
For me, it's a no-brainer, but that's the way that I like to work. It offers me complete control and all of my sites are lightening fast. Especially in todays broadband internet, speed is important.
| 4:56 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No dedicated server.
No need for a dedicated server.
No problem with response times on a shared server. (Alexa rates my site as "fast," with an average load time of 1.5 seconds.)
| 5:00 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'm making about 1,800 a month and am on a shared server. |
Great to hear that! Very inspiring! I am just hoping that Yahoo! would allow international webmasters to join their YPN this year so that it won't be that risky to rely only on Adsense. When Yahoo! took over Overture, I cried because they took away my only source of income i.e. Overture search box. Other affiliate programs like CJ and Linkshare are not working for me and traffic to my sites is not big enough to join certain affiliate programs.
| 5:06 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
On a VPS , US$15 a month, 8 sites, all HTML hand coded, All my sites are very fast to load(according to Alexa) - the reason why I'll continue to have HTML pages only
| 5:13 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I make in a fraction of a day much more than my dedicated hosting costs for the month, so yes its profitable.
Is it essential? No
Does Google rank you higher? No
Are you safe on a shared hosting? NO
Can you grow on a shared hosting? NO
Does income increase because of dedicated hosting? No but your losses will be less. It's all down to the hosting company, economy of scale says you will not be getting the same one on one response in case of downs.
Its a judgment call,and depends on your situation, but if and when you make enough money (at lease double the hosting cost) do the move and invest wisely (if you can afford it) in your sites as a business, not just hosting but all aspects (traffic, design, software, content..) and you will find your income multiplying.
| 5:35 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Unless you have a site that sucks up truckloads of CPU cycles, whether you're on a shared or dedicated server isn't important. The important thing is who's running the server. Do you have a reliable, industrial-strength hosting service with 24x7 staffing? Does the server farm have high-speed connections to multiple Internet backbones? These are the things that really matter.
| 5:43 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Pages Per Month: 1.5m +
Earnings Per month: $1500 Av
| 5:48 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We use 2 load-balanced, dual-xeon, 2gb RAM servers, these just about cope with 1.2m pageviews a day.
One days earnings pay for them, definately a wise investment for anyone looking to expand, no-one wants to see a 'Server Too Busy' message ;)
| 6:12 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|One days earnings pay for them, definately a wise investment for anyone looking to expand, no-one wants to see a 'Server Too Busy' message ;) |
I've never seen a "server too busy" message in 3-1/2 years with my current hosting service, and I have a shared server. OTOH, I don't have 1.2 million page views a day, either, and I probably never will. (I'd be delighted to reach 100,000 PVs per day, which is almost certainly far more than the traffic of any editorial site in my niche). So I have plenty of room for expansion on a shared server.
Obviously, different sites have different needs, but a site that mostly uses HTML "flat files" can exist quite comfortably on a shared server--assuming that the hosting service is professional and reliable, which is important with a dedicated server, too.
| 6:39 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Even if you don't need really a dedicated, I prefer having a VPS. At least you are more secure, except of having a really good hosting who keeps an eye on the server all the time.
| 6:46 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I've never seen a "server too busy" message in 3-1/2 years with my current hosting service, and I have a shared server. |
Based on your username I think I have visited your site before. Your site is purely HTML and I assume you are paying $9.95 or $17.95 per month for your hosting which means a very high ROI for you if you are earning more than a thousand per month. Your Alexa's ranking of 39,000 plus and various listings in Yahoo and ODP are awesome. Probably that could be one of the reasons why your PR at Google is 6.
When I was running only one site on a shared hosting, my site is almost purely HTML. One of my sites is using a CGI script that could bring down the shared server if there are a few people executing the script simultaneously.
But now with many sites to run (and also due to the nature of the sites e.g. forum), I am thinking of using CMS for the next 4 sites I am developing in order to churn out the sites faster (which will stress my server further if I am receiving higher traffic). Using CMS has its advantages and disadvantages. Actually I prefer to develop static site like yours instead of using CMS.
| 7:36 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Based on your username I think I have visited your site before. Your site is purely HTML and I assume you are paying $9.95 or $17.95 per month for your hosting... |
$29.95. I went with an industrial-strength hosting service. (I can't believe how cheap that sounds--I used to spend more than $100 at Kinko's to print the newsletter for my kids' figure-skating club, with postage on top of that!)
|When I was running only one site on a shared hosting, my site is almost purely HTML. One of my sites is using a CGI script that could bring down the shared server if there are a few people executing the script simultaneously. |
I think that's why you need a good hosting service if you have a shared server. (I know someone who uses the same service I do; she once messed up a script, and the hosting service shut her site down almost instantly when it began sucking up CPU cycles like a Dyson vacuum cleaner.)
|But now with many sites to run (and also due to the nature of the sites e.g. forum), I am thinking of using CMS for the next 4 sites I am developing in order to churn out the sites faster (which will stress my server further if I am receiving higher traffic). Using CMS has its advantages and disadvantages. Actually I prefer to develop static site like yours instead of using CMS. |
For me, researching and creating the content is the time-consuming part. Publishing it is easy. A CMS might be nice if I worked on remote computers or had contributors, but at this point it seems like overkill for the kind of work that I do. Plus, I do pretty well in the search engines, and I'd be afraid of messing up a good thing.
| 7:44 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I had to switch to dedicated server when I added caching. My site contains a number of dynamic pages - for example, forum message lists. There's no need to hit database
to display the list, until new message is posted (which forces cache refresh).
The cache grew so fast, my shared provider could not provide the space I needed, so I've went dedicated.
Extra capacity and ability to have full control are a big plus. On the downside, I now have to make sure the server stays up - while with shared hosting the provider
would take care of that.
| 7:45 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
900,000 Page views a month -- Shared (reseller account for personal use) Hosting $24.95 Month , Revs around 40K
Like EV ..mostly static html pages
| 8:17 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't use a dedicated server. It will be a long time before you need one. You can always streamline your site to be more efficient. Make some changes to make the pages a little smaller. I am sure there are tons of other things you can do. Also you can offload your images to another host there are ways to save money.
| 8:52 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm using a cheapo shared hosting deal. 1.2+ million static html page views, I use 30+ gigs of bandwidth a month (most of that is images) with no problems.
I wouldn't even think of trying to do that with any significant amount of dynamic content.
| 9:09 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I do about 100 Gigs monthly over a 5 site network. My content is 95% dynamic content, 3% images, 2% video.
I pay $2.99 monthly to host them all on a shared server. (Used to have problems, but the host moved me to a new server and things have been 99.9% up for the last 12 months)
| 9:15 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wow, $2.99 for a good hosting package with 100GB a month is really dirt cheap.
| 9:16 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a dedicated server but I host 43 websites and also maintain a MLS database for my realtor sites so I need the bandwidth. To run Adsense ads and make over $1,000 a month you really don't need a dedicated server.
| 9:43 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a dedicated server. 3.4ghz - 2 gigs of ram - 120 gb drive. I love having control over my linux/email settings, being able to add sites whenever I want, etc
7.5-9.0 Million page views/mo
server costs: $119/mo
Many sites on the server
Main traffic draw is a busy forum
hosts about 50 sites
| 10:43 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nine sites distributed amonb three web hosts and six shared servers.
I'm fed up with security issues an logrolling, clogged up servers and backup services. It feels really good to buy all these services and still be on a budget.
| 11:01 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My site has been on shared hosting for almost 3 years now and we've never had any problems. Alexa places us very fast at .5 seconds load time in the upper 90% of all sites. We've got over 3,500 static html pages that were optimized for size from the very beginning of construction and this has helped considerably.
Our AS revenue just started to consistantly break 1k per month recently. One of the things we're considering is adding video to certain portions of the site so we may make the move to dedicated servers soon. I think if your site is making money, you have to re-invest eventually. Consider it normal growing pains of expansion.
| 11:13 pm on Jan 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I moved to a dedicated server in the fall and saw traffic increase by about 20% over the next few weeks. Not sure if there is a connection there or not. Mostly it has maintained those levels.
My reason for moving had more to do with desktop search programs (i.e., Copernic) eating up my resources with automated searches. (BTW - I still have not figured out how to block Copernic. Seems not to respond to robots.txt.) Also, programming is not my strength so I'm sure the hacks I've done to my open source CMS are also causing problems. Before I moved I tried hard to reduce resource usage but was not very successful.
But the way I look at it, the extra I'm spending on the dedicated server is probably cheaper than hiring a coder to review and fix the problems I've created. Also, with a dedicated server you could always sell space on the server to other in order to recoup some cost.
| This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: 58 (  2 ) > > |