Forum Moderators: open
Hosting several domains under the same IP can indeed confuse some search engines, especially when it's not set up correctly. Of course, there's no problem to assign seperate IPs to each domain even on a shared host, which is the recommended thing to do.
Who runs the DNS service really has nothing at all to do with the choice of either setup. Do you care who printed the phone book before you call someone? Neither does Google... ;)
which is the recommended thing to do.
recommended by who? So far with extensive testing, questioning and research I have found absolutely no downside at all of any kind at present for having multiple sites on the same IP. It works beautifully and completely every time, with the exception of people running ancient browsers and a few really stupid spiders.
In fact, my recomendation would be quite the opposite, and I do this for a living and am a senior webmaster. Jam as many web sites on a single IP as you can. Why waste the IPs and money to get them?
Richard Lowe
I am moving an ECommerce website from a shared server (which I guess means virtual host and hared IPs) to a dedicated server, which has two IP addresses assigned to it. Those IP addresses will be shared between all the sites which I put on it.
I am told that I should assign the domain name of the ECommerce site to the machine and it's naming service. For example, say the domain is fred, the hosting company have set the machine up so the domain naming service is called ns.fred.co.uk and ns2.fred.co.uk. I should do this, they say, because fred.co.uk will then get a boost from the search engines.
However, I would prefer to make an "umbrella domain", like "lotsashops.com" and make fred a virtual site within it.
Reasons include:
1. The Naming server won't work until I direct traffic to it, so I can't move any other domains to the dedicated server, nor test them in place.
2. I want the secure certificate allocated to this umbrella domain, rather than with fred.co.uk.
But this would presumably, not give the alleged boost to fred.co.uk, which is the ecommerce site.
If understand your post correctly - this is rubbish - and there will be NO search engine impact on fred.co.uk by configuring the server as "ns.lotsashops.co.uk".
Correct?
Many Thanks
Chris
Recommended by the sales man at Host Europe, who refers me to "selfpromotion.com" for the technical details.
SOunds from what you both have to say that I should ignore the salesman, and configure it as ns.lotsashops.co.uk.
Rgds, Chirs
One of the keyphrases in my post above is "especially when it's not set up correctly". You'll find many horror stories in the Google News forum, where the search engines have indexed the wrong sites for certain domains. I've never done it myself, but it may well be possible to configure name based hosting in a way that is reliable and functional. But it's being done wrong often enough to bring the method as such into a bad light (a seperate IP for a new domain costs me a whopping 1US$ per month with my hoster, btw.).
I am told that I should assign the domain name of the ECommerce site to the machine and it's naming service. For example, say the domain is fred, the hosting company have set the machine up so the domain naming service is called ns.fred.co.uk and ns2.fred.co.uk. I should do this, they say, because fred.co.uk will then get a boost from the search engines.
This is plain nonsense, if I may be so blunt... ;)
The host name of the DNS server is completely irrelevant to the operation of your site(s), and even more so to their rankings on any search engine.
1. The Naming server won't work until I direct traffic to it, so I can't move any other domains to the dedicated server, nor test them in place.
The functionality of the DNS server has nothing to do with the traffic to your web site. As long as the root name servers have the right IP address registered for your DNS server, anyone will be able to resolve your domains. This is a completely indpendent service to any actual web site. In fact, I don't think that a DNS server even needs a host name, other than for a human observer to recognize it more easily.
2. I want the secure certificate allocated to this umbrella domain, rather than with fred.co.uk.
I don't think so. Unless you want your users to establish secure connections only to your umbrella domain, of course. The secure certificate is for the site, not for the DNS server. And you will need a seperate certificate for each domain that requires secure access. Again, the host name of the DNS server is completely irrelevant.
One of the keyphrases in my post above is "especially when it's not set up correctly".
Missed that part, sorry. I've been setting up DNS myself for so long I sometimes forget how confusing it all was when I first started...One of the advantages of running my own DNS server is mistakes are much, much easier to troubleshoot and fix.
Richard Lowe
I am told that I should assign the domain name of the ECommerce site to the machine and it's naming service. For example, say the domain is fred, the hosting company have set the machine up so the domain naming service is called ns.fred.co.uk and ns2.fred.co.uk. I should do this, they say, because fred.co.uk will then get a boost from the search engines.
I agree with bird. This is just nonsense. The nameserver is not relevant to the search engine in any way, shape or form.
Richard Lowe
Sorry, I got off on that subject. It just brings back bad memories for me.
P.S. I don't think it matters to Google either who provides the DNS service to a domain. In the past, large users like Google could purchase master DNS pointer information, primary and secondary DNS IP's, in the forum of a large file, which could be copied to their DNS server. This would save a bunch of time polling the "roots", but I don't know if this service is provided anymore since it's now netsol and there are many different registry services.
I manage my own Cobalt RaQ3 server. I've learned to do this from scratch , pretty interesting. I think I have unlimited domains I can add to this server.? I have around 30 on the server now, all with the same IP address.
One thing I never learned was how to do is just apply a seperate ip to each domain. Doesn't each server have 200 some ip adresses? Is it 1-225 or something like that, just change the last set of numbers?
Anyways, maybe I'll just keep adding them to the same ip, and maybe that's all I can do anyway? And there is no harm with this? Has not seemed to cause any problems yet.
Thanks in advance..
