[selowitch]

If one is responsible for maintaining several websites (say about a dozen), does there come a point where it makes sense to build/buy a web server and host the sites yourself?

I would think that with hosting being as cheap as it is and server software and bandwidth being relatively expensive, it doesn’t make sense for a small, one-person operation with total receipts under $50,000 a year to go to that kind of trouble — or does it?

[jyunderwood]

I don't really think volume has much to do with it.15 local sites vs. 15 sites at a hosting center can still be about the same amount of work maintaining. Unless it comes down to you need certain software installed at host aren't willing to touch, it comes down to dollars and cents and everyone's case is different.

Co-location and dedicated servers are something to look in too as well. buy a server but let the host maintain it. you can either pay a hosting company $99-300 a server to watch it 24/7 and keep it on a reliable connection or pay someone in-house a hell of a lot more to just watch it.

[selowitch]

Originally posted by jyunderwood:
Co-location and dedicated servers are something to look in too as well. buy a server but let the host maintain it. you can either pay a hosting company $99-300 a server to watch it 24/7 and keep it on a reliable connection or pay someone in-house a hell of a lot more to just watch it.

That sounds like the best compromise in many cases. I'm also thinking that DSL/cable is probably not sufficient for hosting and a T-1 or similar would be really expensive.

[ameat]

Originally posted by selowitch:
That sounds like the best compromise in many cases. I'm also thinking that DSL/cable is probably not sufficient for hosting and a T-1 or similar would be really expensive.

Hosting on a DSL/Cable line would be an awful idea, since in most cases those lines are asymmetrical; download speed is fast, but outgoing bandwidth is severely limited. Especially when hosting 15+ sites with any amount of decent traffic, you're going to hit your bandwidth cap very quickly...

[legacyb4]

Agreed; when you say 'host yourself' do you mean literally hosted at home or a colocated server?

Bandwidth is the biggest issue IMHO.

[MacMan4000]

What kind of connection do normal servers have... and by normal i mean no hosted by yourself... or a webhosting company server?

[legacyb4]

EV1Servers.net states:

EV1Servers is connected to the Internet through 14 Gigabit Ethernet links from six separate backbone providers. As of May 2004, we are home to over 20,000 Windows and Linux web servers, which makes EV1Servers the world's largest dedicated web hosting provider.

as an example

[loki74]

Its worth it if hosting sites is what you want to do as a career, I think...

Other than that, have others host for you, or do the compromise mentinoed earlier by someone in the thread, and save yourself the headache. And the money. Servrs arent the only thing to consider--you'll need to pay to get your SSL up and running, security, liability, yeah. Big mess is what I see.

[PurpleGiant]

I assume you are doing this already, however a reseller hosting account is probably the best option for anyone wanting to host under 50 websites for the best value.

Around the 50 - 100 mark is where you might consider it a better option to go dedicated. All IMO of course.

[mondayisgreat]

what if you want to have a database driven web site that might need nightly backups? THen a dedicated hosting solution might be $300 per month, plus $__ for nightly backups, and then there are other additions. It adds up quickly.

Would you(anyone) suggest a dedicated server for a person that has 15-20 database driven web sites?

My thought would be to host yourself, assuming that you can configure a secure server that doesn't drain too much of your time.

What's your thought?

[Partisan01]

I would recommend colo hosting. You buy the machine, maintain it anyway you want, but you are not responsible for power, cooling etc. There is a company that does hosting in the building I work in aspstation.net. I know the guys who own the place, it's pretty cheap for a single machine, something like $30 a month, maybe less depending on what you want to do.

Of course if you don't have the time or experience to build and secure a machine with multiple web sites it might be best for you to let someone else do it. Also remember with colo if anything happens you're responsible for fixing it, doesn't matter what time of the day. The nice thing is sometimes hosting providers are not available right away if you have a problem, whereas with colo you can fix it as soon as you get to an internet connection. Best of luck.