Is it time to get my own server?

I have 3 web sites hosted by 3 different hosts

[mani]

I do have 3 web sites, each one is hosted on different hosting company.Should i go for my own virtual server and host all the 3 sites at the same server.

[guitaristinus]

Aren't they already on virtual servers? Wouldn't your "own" virtual server be a dedicated server?

[mani]

mean to say that i want to buy my own server, rather than hosting my all 3 sites on different servers.Will this give me any benefit that i do have the control of all my 3 websites, moreover i can host more websites if i own my server.

[TreeShare]

Running your own server is great, but I think the biggest single drawback would be lack of bandwidth, especially if you have many visitors. I say this assuming you can't afford to have a T1 installed.

I'm running my own server, but I don't need much bandwidth. Where I'm starting to run into trouble is offering visitors rather resource-hungry PHP scripts; they tie up my P4 3.4gHz pretty good. I have a business cable connection with 640k up.

[mani]

Well, my one site needs about 7 to 10 GB band width, and i am going to have a server with 20 GB band width and 2 GB space.I think this will be more than enough for my needs.

[birdstuff]

I think what TreeShare was getting at is you will find a major bottleneck on the uplink. Your site will likely load very slowly for your visitors.

[trillianjedi]

I think mani is talking about a hosted solution, not running a server from home.

A virtual server isn't "yours" - you're sharing resources on the machine with 10-20 other users, each of who might have a dozen websites.

You'll need to consider performance benefits/loss.

I take it you have ruled out a dedicated server, perhaps on cost?

TJ

[cat5]

Do you have better security options then a well established hosting company?

[mani]

yes , obviously i am talking about virtual server,not individual server.It has no relation with speed of my sites.Only thing which i will benefit is the cost. I have just posted this message to tell those who have many sites and host on different servers,better you take your virtual server and host all those on same server.

[marcn]

Why not get a reselling account (aka: VPS or virtual private server) or something like that.
I have one and I can ad as many sites as I wish with allmost any type of configuration (space, band width, etc.). And the best thing is, it's not expensive.

[waverider]

First of all I don't think you need a VPS or dedicated. These would give you greater control.
But you don't need all those resources since you need 20GB and 2GB disk space, though there are companies that give you mini VPS.

But first of all you should think about distributing your risk, even the best host can fall sometimes.

I assume you are generating revenue from these sites. So why cut all the revenue sources at once? Why not distribute the risk to 3 different hosting companies, even different Data Center.

If you still think you need VPS (or dedicated) I would recommend <snip>. These guys have been in business for more then 10 years. And I have never ever possibly seen such a great support service. Almost all of my support demands and queries are replied in less then a minute, and I am on the other side of the planet. And it's not just that they are not that loaded because it's night in US, other US customers have the same experience.

[edited by: Woz at 5:41 am (utc) on May 20, 2005]
[edit reason] No specific hosts please, see TOS & Charter [/edit]

[OCSupertones]

I have a reseller account with <snip>(can I post names here?) and love it. It can host unlimited domains.

check out resellers before buying your own dedicated server.

[edited by: Woz at 5:39 am (utc) on May 20, 2005]
[edit reason] No specific hosts please, see TOS & Charter [/edit]

[waverider]

I just read the charter and saw that recommendations are not allowed. Sorry about that.

I knew about the URL in posts rules. But they have PR 7 and the site is old enough.

[TreeShare]

waverider, could you elaborate on "distributing your risk"?

It's a concern to me and I don't have a handle on options.

Thanks :)

[rfrick]

I am new here and maybe the obvious does not need to be said, but the cheapest thing is to have one host and domain pointing to subdirectories as a way of hosing 3 websites. You might have trouble sorting out website logs, or maybe problems with mail, but that's the cheapest.

Bob

[waverider]

TreeShare, having 3 sites on a dedicated server or VPS, on the same machine anyway means that all 3 could be down at once. What if a hard drive fails? What if the server is cracked? What if... Even with the best response time a machine would still be down for 2 hours at least to replace a hard disk (unless you have RAID which is not cheap).

I would rather put the 3 sites in 3 different Data Centers, not only on different machines. If a server is down, then just one of the sites will be down.

Anyway, it depends on the revenue the sites make. If the sites are generating just a few bucks and you afford to have all 3 sites down at once for 24 hours, you'll be ok on VPS.

Hosting risk should be distributed as well, besides the different niches that your sites should be in and various source of traffic (these are mentioned in other threads).