Self Hosting

I would have to say it's more trouble than it's worth. First of all, most DSL/Cable providers discourage this and go as far as to not only block port 80 (http:// port) but may also cancel your account with them for bandwidth reasons.

Secondly, keeping a website up 24/7 requires a lot of effort on the part of a sysadmin to eliminate downtime and ensure peak performance.

Just to give you a general idea, a single server is used to host only these forums. It's a Pentium 4 2.4 ghz with 1 gig of RAM.

A much better solution is to invest in shared hosting with a reputable hosting company. You can get a great value to setup a website for as little as $10/month.

Thanks Dani, I was just toying with the idea:) I currently use shared hosting and I have no complaints about it apart from when I started hosting with them they were getting massive DDOS attacks but it seems to be ok now. I probably stick with what I have but I was interested to find out about the ins and outs of it.

Cheers

Red

One of the disadvantages of the ADSL platform is that because it's asymetrical, you're not going to be taking full advantage of the bandwidth available (since you'll be serving files through your upload capacity, which will slow things down considerably when the line gets busy with people requesting pages/files).

Another disadvantage - you don't (at least not here in the UK) have any SLA should the line go down. It'll get put right when the telecom provider feels like correcting it :)

SDSL and other technologies will hopefully change all of that, but until now it's still best to either get shared (or virtual private) hosting or a dedicated server.

Regards,

Martyn

Thanks Martyn, I take your points about ADSL upload speeds and you're right there is no SLA here in Ireland either unless you want to shell out for a leased line. My line has been fairly reliable since I got it installed exept when it was down for a week because some clown removed the jumpers from my line in the exchange all the telco kept telling me was my line conditions must have changed:rolleyes: but since I work for the telco I went up to the exchange and collared one of the engineers to fix it for me.

i do agree its more trouble than its worth, it takes alot of time and more money than just buying some hosting ive tried this already and its not worth it i think

I dont agree with you guys when you say its more trouble then what its worth :-| . About the alots of time and money..? It doesnt cost a penny to launch ur own server , and the time part it takes all of 3 mins to get ur server installed and launched.!

I have been running a website and a forum of my comp based server for like 3 or more month's now.! I am on Shaw cable (Roger's communication's) and they have not sent me any letter's telling me about my banwidth. My forum has like over 400 or more members , my forum is running off my 700 mhz computer. The only down time people suffer from is when my comp descides to shut down, or when im dloading sumthing.! Im on cable internet, and i have only 512 ram. So you dont need a fast system to run a server.! On average it takes all og 2 seconds to load my pages.

I host my personal website and mail server on cable (OptOnline) and the only investment of time I've spent on it is the initial configuration to the servers, which was about 3 hours total, once I got the DNS working.

The reason (I think) you need such a beefed up server for the forum is because of the database. I former collegue of mine ran a site on a 486 with 128 MB of RAM on FreeBSD and the server was serving an average of 40,000 hits per day. Of course, that was a few years ago, so I have no idea what the site's running on now (I don't even remember the URL to even check it.)

My point is, it all depends on what your site is going to be serving (content-wise.) If you plan on having a few .html pages, or even .php, you shouldn't need a high-end system. If you're going to be accessing databases, then that's where the performance issue comes into play, requiring a server-class system.

If you enjoy tinkering with webservers and the like, you probably won't even mind the time you spend working on it.

...just my 2 cents...

Doesn't OptOnline block ports 80 and 8080? ;) I have OOL as well and that's what they do here in NY.

Yes, they do block 80, which is why I have the firewall listening on another port. I had to create a firewall/nat rule that redirects the packets to the right IP:port on the internal net for web, but mail (25 and 110) works just fine.

Let me know if you want to see how I did it :)

just another quick 2 cents worth, i run an intranet webserver for 50 people useing php script. the platform is a pII 400 90Mb ram, running redhat 8.0 with apache. just pointing out hardware wise, if your only catering for a few people it doesnt take much. and its been up and running for 9 months with only one reboot (and thats because i pulled the wrong cable, derrr!).

spikes

Sure TheOgre, would love a lesson :)

Sure TheOgre, would love a lesson :)

Lesson: IP Routing 101

Given:

- A webserver (listening on port 80) with an internal IP address of 192.168.0.5
- A mail server (using POP3 and SMTP) with an internal IP of 192.168.0.10
- A firewall/router (in this example, running IPFW and NATd on FreeBSD)
- An Internet connection using Optimum Online
- A properly registered domain (with a MX record) pointing to a dynamic IP
- A DNS redirector for the domain. In this example, our webserver is listening on port 6900, and the DNS redirector has been configured for this already.

Configuring IP routing for mail and web using IPFW on FreeBSD:

Edit your firewall config file and add a rule that allows all incoming traffic on TCP port 80 to be redirected to the internal IP of the webserver (192.168.0.5):

# fxp0 = outside (WAN) interface
add [rule #] allow log tcp from any to 192.168.0.5 6900 via fxp0

Then create a firewall rule allowing anything incoming on TCP ports 25 and 110 to be redirected to the internal IP of the mail server:

add [rule #] allow log tcp from any to 192.168.0.10 25 via fxp0
add [rule #] allow log tcp from any to 192.168.0.10 110 via fxp0

Save the changes and close the file.

Now we edit the natd config file to actually tell NATd where to route the packets. In FreeBSD, the file to edit is /etc/natd.conf.

#The format is: redirect_port proto inside_ip:port port(listening port)
# Allow mail traffic to the mail server:
redirect_port tcp 192.168.0.10:110 110
redirect_port tcp 192.168.0.10:25 25
# Redirect www passthrough to the web server:
redirect_port tcp 192.168.0.5:80 6900

Restart your net services, and you're done.

-OR-

If you use a LinkSys/DLink/NetGear router, just configure the port forwarding portion to redirect the ports to the IP:port and you're done :)

(I haven't done this in awhile on Linux, so I don't remember the commands for routing with DNAT and/or SNAT. Google has LOTS of examples, so I won't try to duplicate them here.)

I never understood why you'd run a web site from home. The electricity, hardware, and software you spend (if you go with non-open source) costs more per month than a web host where you'd only pay $5.00 a month. I guess I can see why someone would want to do it, if you have special needs (something hosts don't provide) but if it's a basic site, I don't think it's worth it.

My two cents.

I never understood why you'd run a web site from home. The electricity, hardware, and software you spend (if you go with non-open source) costs more per month than a web host where you'd only pay $5.00 a month. I guess I can see why someone would want to do it, if you have special needs (something hosts don't provide) but if it's a basic site, I don't think it's worth it.

My two cents.

I run one of my sites from home as a way to demonstrate to my clients some of the services I offer (some of them are interested in hosting their own sites, rather than paying for webhosting, among other projects that utilize a web server.) Out of the 9 machines on my network that are on 24/7, the CPU power to run httpd isn't costing anything extra, not to mention I use httpd for other projects I'm working on, so to make it available to the outside is worth it to me in the long run. The extra bandwidth usage for the hits aren't anything worth noticing, mainly because I don't advertise the site.

As far as others are concerned, maybe they want to do it for fun, or to see how it works (the hacker idiology at work :), or for other personal reasons. A few of my associates started hosting their own sites for fun, and have since started their own hosting companies they run out of their house (on T-lines, not cable/DSL.) Who knows? Maybe some of the people in here will someday open their own business doing hosting. It makes it easier if you already know what you're doing, and learning it now might also help them in other ways (at the workplace, etc.)

For me, the electricity is already being consumed. The time it took me to get everything online is incidental for my purposes, since I wind up getting reimbursed for it sooner or later...

Ultimately, I think it would be smarter to stick with a host. Simply because of the preformance you'll be providing your viewer, as well as your personal security. Unless you have an extra box laying around and you're going to use that for hosting your site, and nothing else... I don't think it's that great of an idea. The second a website is placed online, it becomes a target, and when you get some viewers looking for trouble, and they see it's hosted on your home computer, ew that could become ugly. Also, your DSL is pretty fast, but nothing really in comparison to the lines that data centers have... on top of that data centers have the back up power, fire supression systems, security, and wicked fast lines... and when you can get that for only $5 a month? I'd say go for it.

My 10 cents.. best of luck to you!

Ultimately, I think it would be smarter to stick with a host ...

Smarter for whom? Smarter for ME? Smarter for CSCGAL? Smarter for Everyone?

While that statement might be true for some, don't make it a blanket statement for everyone. I know a lot of people that don't HAVE the extra $5 it would cost them every month. They have everything else except the cash flow, so why shouldn't they if they know what they're doing?

I for one am sure as hell not going to pay a hosting provider for something I can do on my own, especially when the content is mainly for me and my clients, considering it's mostly projects I'm working on. I already pay for 4 hosting accounts that are for business - I'm not about to pay for one that I use for fun/testing/projects/learning.

I think the best advice for someone contemplating hosting their own website would be to do their homework, investigate the possibilities, the costs, the hours involved in the maintenance, security, and the LEARNING involved with the whole project. If you want a shopping cart with SSL and certificates and other bells & whistles, then I'd recommend paying for a hosting provider. If you're curious to see how it's done and want to have fun with it, GO FOR IT! You won't learn anything about it until you actually get a server up and running. (Just make sure you read your ISP's TOS and understand the consequences that might be imposed on you if you get caught.) And anyone who tells you not to for no good reason other than to hear themselves speak should be ignored. If they have a good reason, fine, but otherwise, tell them to go away.

Oh, and regarding your comment about "The second a website is placed online, it becomes a target...", any COMPUTER that goes online on a high-speed (broadband) connection becomes a target, regardless of what services it's running.

Aside from that, I think this thread has gone off on a tangent and should be locked.

i just noticed you guys were talking about hosting ... so here it goes

i use Shaw Cable in canada and when i purchase a domain, it always asks for me a DNS ... i can't figure out where to get a DNS. i host a website over IP only ... i have a router and i can forward port 80 properly and everything ... i know what i'm doing ... can you give me a clue on how to get a DNS and what to do please?

i just noticed you guys were talking about hosting ... so here it goes

i use Shaw Cable in canada and when i purchase a domain, it always asks for me a DNS ... i can't figure out where to get a DNS. i host a website over IP only ... i have a router and i can forward port 80 properly and everything ... i know what i'm doing ... can you give me a clue on how to get a DNS and what to do please?

You'll need DNS to resolve the domain name to IP addresses, where to point mail and so forth. I would recommend somewhere like EasyDNS or ZoneEdit fo that particular reason. Nice web-front ends to managing DNS entries. See http://www.easydns.com or http://www.zoneedit.com.

Regards,

Martyn

Thanks, that'll work!