I've been following a discussion on another mboard, what is the average number client sites per server? I know of a couple that has like 1000 or 1500 per box.

Varies loads, can be as little as one or in some cases some people can pack in 2000...

It can greatly vary between hosts and server types. Some higher end servers can safely fit thousands of accounts, however it would depend on the usage levels of each account/customer. Many hosts choose not to push the limit, by minimizing the number of accounts per server to something well below its capacity.

Like the others said , it really depends on server type and what your clients are running on there accounts. Me personally I would never try to fit 1000 or more on a server cause you looking for a big headache down the road.

40-100 Is max I would put and 100 is top end server below that is a average server more like 40-50 for that.

Originally posted by nukehelpers
40-100 Is max I would put and 100 is top end server below that is a average server more like 40-50 for that.

What kind of server are we talking about here?
And what are the traffic statistics for these sites? What do the sites hosted use? Are there any popular forums hosted? ;)

17 per server

My stock answer.

We have servers with 6 sites that are groaning and we have one with nearly 1000 that's one of our least loaded servers cpuload-wise except for when it runs backup it rarely sees loads much over .6 or so.

For basic hosting and 1G of ram and a good P4 server and figuring basic sites nothing too extreme (no 30G per month forums) about 250 seems to be a decent number.

Where do you people get these numbers of 100 or 50 on a server?

As Gary said I have servers with 100 accounts straining under the load and others pushing 1000 sites that never even see a load above .2 so how can you say 100 sites per server?
You are either way under loading your servers thus cutting your revenue for no reason or you are way over loading your servers.

There is no correct number of sites per server answer, it all depends on the sites the server and how much load they pull.

For instance this site runs on 2 dual xeons so that is .5 sites per server.

We get these numbers from experience again it all depends on server. Also why risk overselling I would rather cut profit to always have happy clients some day those 1000 will use what they got and burn you.

From what I can see, servers ranging from 1 site to 1500 sites all seem to work fairly well. It really does depend on the nature of those sites and usage. I have seen 1 site alone bringing up loads to over 1.

Originally posted by nukehelpers
We get these numbers from experience again it all depends on server. Also why risk overselling I would rather cut profit to always have happy clients some day those 1000 will use what they got and burn you.

Who said anything about overselling.

I do not oversell. That is a whole other thread in itself.

I have 3 sites hosted on my backup server with 1GB RAM, load average at 1.00.

We have one server that has about 1000 sites but we now plan to host only 350-400 sites per server.

The one with 1000 sites runs ok since it has small sites.

Well I would add that it doesn't so much depend upon sites per server, rather the resources sold to the client on the server that deteremines how many accounts per server.

Since we don't oversell our servers we fit exactly the number of clients on the server that that server's resources can handle. Therefore we have some servers that have few sites on them (the clients have very active sites that pull down alot of bandwidth) and other servers that have many sites on them (the clients have many relatively small or inactive sites).

Despite the difference, our servers have more or less the same number of client accounts on each server assuming each client pays for the same ammount of resources.

If they pay for a larger account, we have fewer clients on that particular server or conversely if they pay for a smaller account we fit more on the server.

In any event, the number of sites on one of our servers is not a good guage, however the number of clients is.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Jeff

Pretty good answers. The one host that has 1000 sites per server always has downtime as many of their clientele that comes to their support forum say that this server is down, that server is slow, mySQL is dead, etc...

The current host a couple of my sites are on now, I'm not sure how many clients are on the same box my sites are on, but the box has been really dependable....very little downtime.

We place a maximum of 100 sites per server but as has been mentioned here sometimes you can only fit 10 before the box is full.

Better to take a small cut in the revenue stakes to have less problems in the long run. I would not wan't to be answering 500-600 clients when one server goes down... but that's me :) We cater for mostly business clients hence uptime is most important

Originally posted by MN-Robert
We place a maximum of 100 sites per server but as has been mentioned here sometimes you can only fit 10 before the box is full.

Better to take a small cut in the revenue stakes to have less problems in the long run. I would not wan't to be answering 500-600 clients when one server goes down... but that's me :) We cater for mostly business clients hence uptime is most important

The # of sites per average server has dwindled with each new server and the server specs have gone up. We've brought 3 new servers online in the last few months that didn't get a single new customer on them, they were filled with people we moved from other servers to ease stress.

One big problem is, a server takes months to "mature". If you add 300 sites on a server in a short time you won't even know it's overloaded (usually) for several months!

That's exactly right Gary :)

Yep I agree with you Gary it takes time for a server to mature and for you to know what the clients are doing with it.

I sell mostly reseller accounts I have one client that has a 2.5space 25 gig transfer package over a few months he has put nearly 300 sites in that space and bandwidth with no oversell. He sells domain names and they are all one page web sites with no traffic just displays.

Still I moved him to a dual xeon from a PIV 1.7 just because I hated logging on and seeing a single processor running 474 sites.

Server load was still very low but for some reason it bugged me seeing that many sites on there.

I used to aim for 300 sites per server more or less but found it was very hard to control the number of sites when you are dealing with resellers. I can only control the resources they use and I keep those well in-line of the servers capabilities.

Shared Hosting servers - 150-250 accounts hosting 500-700 domains
Reseller servers - 20-50 accounts hosting 750-1200 domains

Originally posted by MN-Robert
We place a maximum of 100 sites per server . . .
Does that apply to your Reseller plans (http://www.myacen.com/resellers.html) too? :D

Well with three years of experience we run the following specs:

2.4 gig, single CPU boxes with dual hard drives (2nd for backup) with 512 meg RAM

We limit each box on average at 200 accounts (give or take), plus their add-on domains.

Average load: below 1.00 (checking right now at an average of 0.30 across all boxes)

Highest account is pulling 50 gig+ a month (several close to that - all VB forum/oscommerce based)

Enough servers in place to 'shuffle' accounts if need be.

Datacenter gives us full 'burstable' bandwidth to 100 Mbit. (that's some serious mojo in end user language) > Peak10.com

Basically, watch your load, and your transfer, and compensate as neccessary. :)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Does that apply to your Reseller plans (http://www.myacen.com/resellers.html) too? :D

No hence the "we". The majority of our resellers have a reseller account for multi domain purposes.

We have Reseller/Multi-domain servers that are more than 15mths old. The key is flexibility. You might need to move clients off that server, if server resources are being pushed. The server becomes less profitable for you, but you need to look at the bigger picture of overall profitability and not just that server's income/cost etc.

But we found that over time, some clients leave and this has a balancing effect with those clients who are expanding their resource usage. Hence we never add new clients to older servers.

Monte is spot on. We can't really control the number of domains on a server, with these Reseller/Multi-domain accounts. We can however control usage and need to be proactive in relocating some clients, should the need arise.

Originally posted by akashik
Datacenter gives us full 'burstable' bandwidth to 100 Mbit. (that's some serious mojo in end user language) > Peak10.com


Your in P10 to? Don't you just love this DC and it's stability :D

Anyway I can't really comment on max per server, as my server is still in the maturing state. However I have put a personal limit of 50 reseller accounts per box (give or take due to loads).

I do run p4 2.4's w 1GB ram and currently have 400 sites on server (A good portion of those follow Monte's example)
and our server loads usually under .30 ;)

Originally posted by KimmiKat
I've been following a discussion on another mboard, what is the average number client sites per server? I know of a couple that has like 1000 or 1500 per box.

It depends on the clients and the server. Experimentation and experience will let you know what is a good amount to have.

I think the most we have on one box is 220 sites. Most of our servers hover just over 100 sites per box. Certainly you could put more on the server than that, but we prefer to keep load low.

We had a client at one point who rented a Celeron 1.3ghz CPanel dedicated server from us. He put _over 800_ accounts on that one server. I never saw the server load under 6, even in the wee hours of the morning. During the day, assuming our monitoring scripts could even get the server to respond, loads were constantly 30+. We tried as politely as possible to explain that he was way, way overselling space on the server and that he needed to get a second server ASAP to balance the load. He didn't go for it and eventually over the course of a few months, he had lost a lot of customers and decided to fold the hosting part of his business. I wonder why...

Take care,

Brian

I know exactly what you are talking about :) In our case, the client has about 1300 clients on the server. But the thing is, only about 1% is the high usage clients. Once he move those 1% away, things run a lot more smoother.

do a whois.sc search. you will get the numbers!

Originally posted by palash
do a whois.sc search. you will get the numbers!

Its not quite that easy actually... for example we host a lot of UK domains which whois.sc does not pick up on... so whatever number is given take that as a minimum.

You can easily put 500 mom & pops on a n 80 GB P4 with a GB ram in it.

What do you do with your M&Pop's ? only 100 per box too?

Originally posted by MN-Robert
We place a maximum of 100 sites per server but as has been mentioned here sometimes you can only fit 10 before the box is full.

Better to take a small cut in the revenue stakes to have less problems in the long run. I would not wan't to be answering 500-600 clients when one server goes down... but that's me :) We cater for mostly business clients hence uptime is most important

Originally posted by NexDog
Shared Hosting servers - 150-250 accounts hosting 500-700 domains
Reseller servers - 20-50 accounts hosting 750-1200 domains

700 domains? 1200 domains?

Holly Crap! Talk about alot of domains per box.

Hate to be on one of your oversold servers. Egads!

The amount of domains is irrelavant. It the resources being used that counts. Suppose you have 5000 domains that all consist of 1 informational page and they barely get any traffic....any box could handle that.

I host a lot of domains that are just on the web for the sake of being there, the owners just wanted to have a web presence. I love those customers. They consist of 4 pages max and barely use 500 Mb of bandwidth a month.

Originally posted by LightningWeb
The amount of domains is irrelavant. It the resources being used that counts. Suppose you have 5000 domains that all consist of 1 informational page and they barely get any traffic....any box could handle that.

I host a lot of domains that are just on the web for the sake of being there, the owners just wanted to have a web presence. I love those customers. They consist of 4 pages max and barely use 500 Mb of bandwidth a month.

One thing I've noticed, especially about Plesk and Ensim, once you pass about 400 sites they both start messing up regardless of resources, they're written in such a way that the # of open files, the size of the config files and other things just get too big to be reliable anymore. On Ensim every vhost is 4 more open files on the harddrive, 500 domains is roughly 2000 open files just to run apache, after a while just the # of domains starts to drag a server down without even any real usage. The crappy scalability has really aggravated me in the passed, personally I'd like to build a cluster of servers say a dozen P4's in a load balanced cluster reading data from a single netapp or other network storage device and put say, 2000-2500 domains per cluster. But this wouldn't work with something like Ensim or Plesk (regardless of the other problems with a cluster) 2500 domains in either of these panels would make starting just the apache process a likely server crash.

I'd like to see a clustering control panel, which splits up tasks with a single central command server so you login to the central server and it updates the nodes and say your email starts to overburden, just add another email node, or mysql node, or apache node. So you'd ever only have 1 control panel login for everything you host, and just add nodes as you need them.

Originally posted by Dixiesys


I'd like to see a clustering control panel, which splits up tasks with a single central command server so you login to the central server and it updates the nodes and say your email starts to overburden, just add another email node, or mysql node, or apache node. So you'd ever only have 1 control panel login for everything you host, and just add nodes as you need them. [/B]

Isn't H-Sphere supposed to be able to handle clustering? I was reading about it briefly the other day.

w/ hsphere you r better off running separate boxes for email and dns. I have had cpanel clustering working a few times a bit buggy and scary :eek:

Gary, configure the box well and Plesk does 900 domains well. I must admit that keeping Plesk 6 is worse than Plesk 5 for handling domains. Have 1000 domains on a Dual Xeon reseller box and apache can do weird things on restart. We will just pull apart the binaries and hack them stable like we did with Plesk 5.

As long as apache doesn't crash, services are stable and load stays around 1 on a PIII or less than 2 on a dual xeon, the amount of domains does not matter. The only thing it can affect is the amount of time the backup has to run. That is our biggest challenge at the moment.

Originally posted by centrahost
w/ hsphere you r better off running separate boxes for email and dns. I have had cpanel clustering working a few times a bit buggy and scary :eek:

CPanel clustering? Really? I've seen it in WHM for ages, and tried a few times to find docs on it, with no success. How did you set it up? Was there a guide you followed anywhere you'd care to share?

Take care,

Brian

Originally posted by centrahost
You can easily put 500 mom & pops on a n 80 GB P4 with a GB ram in it.

What do you do with your M&Pop's ? only 100 per box too?

True, but why bother in 6 months time if traffic starts to pickup you will have issues. One of our newest boxes is nearly full now. We generally keep one box spare so if something should arise we have somewhere to place accounts.

load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

We are happy with the setup, creates less hassels ensures greater reliability and thats what our customers deserve and hence why are signup rate is very good :), we don't have the lowest prices in the market but we have one of the most reliable for the pricing offered.

Sugar coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize!! :D

Sounds great!

Originally posted by Vortex-Steve
Varies loads, can be as little as one or in some cases some people can pack in 2000...

ditto. But I was wondering would those web host that practiced such policy running out of bandwidth very soon? :D

25MB bandwidth/user and there goes 500GB. Tell me if I've calculated wrongly

25MB bandwidth/user and there goes 500GB. Tell me if I've calculated wrongly 25 X 2000 = 50,000MB=50GB

Originally posted by MN-Robert
True, but why bother in 6 months time if traffic starts to pickup you will have issues. One of our newest boxes is nearly full now. We generally keep one box spare so if something should arise we have somewhere to place accounts.

load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

We are happy with the setup, creates less hassels ensures greater reliability and thats what our customers deserve and hence why are signup rate is very good :), we don't have the lowest prices in the market but we have one of the most reliable for the pricing offered.
LOL. So your new box that's nearly full, has load averages of 0.00, 0.01, 0.00? Yeaaaaah right. :rolleyes: I didn't realise this was the advertising forum. :D

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
LOL. So your new box that's nearly full, has load averages of 0.00, 0.01, 0.00? Yeaaaaah right. :rolleyes: I didn't realise this was the advertising forum. :D

Thats right, I would give you the sysinfo page but as the people are aware you are out to attack other hosts on these boards rather than support your own clients. Jealous :rolleyes: :stickout:

The fact that HTTPME place over 1000 domains per box to maximise your profits does not indicate a trend in other hosts. You have some personal problems Aussie Bob.

Almost every mchost thread regardless of what the thread is about you post trying to offer advice, when in reality you are advertising your product to people that have posted. I know these tactics I even posted about them and sorry to say Bobby the people higher up (some of them) have caught on. The same can be said about the Dot5 thread its gone now so I can't quote you but the first two pages had two claims stating something along the lines that Dot5 spend all their money on advertising they won't have enough to pay for other costs.

Simple fact is your jealous Bobby, sorry to say it you have attacked many hosts in these forums not directly and it's only now others are picking up on it. For the record I was impressed 8-12 months ago with your business ethics however I must have been blinded to the facts I stated above. This is a discussion in no way have I advertised. I am happy to show any moderator here or any member the facts. :cool:

Thanks
:cool: :stickout:

No big deal Robert. If you want to blow your own trumpet and pretend that you have server loads of 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 on a box that's nearly full, then whatever. :rolleyes:

Trust me, I have nothing to be jealous of. I see someone blowing their own trumpet with ridiculous claims, I comment on that. :D

Originally posted by MN-Robert
True, but why bother in 6 months time if traffic starts to pickup you will have issues.

We hit a brick wall about 6 months ago with 4 specific domains. Out the blue, they picked up some steam (almost overnight) and we were caught completely unawares. Minor traffic overall, but bulk hits...so we moved them and they were happy to co-operate. I don't consider the first server in question to be over-subscribed in the least, but it proved how quickly things can need addressing.

Fun and games. :)

G

Originally posted by MN-Robert
Thats right, I would give you the sysinfo page but as the people are aware you are out to attack other hosts on these boards rather than support your own clients. Jealous :rolleyes: :stickout:

The fact that HTTPME place over 1000 domains per box to maximise your profits does not indicate a trend in other hosts. You have some personal problems Aussie Bob.

Almost every mchost thread regardless of what the thread is about you post trying to offer advice, when in reality you are advertising your product to people that have posted. I know these tactics I even posted about them and sorry to say Bobby the people higher up (some of them) have caught on. The same can be said about the Dot5 thread its gone now so I can't quote you but the first two pages had two claims stating something along the lines that Dot5 spend all their money on advertising they won't have enough to pay for other costs.

Simple fact is your jealous Bobby, sorry to say it you have attacked many hosts in these forums not directly and it's only now others are picking up on it. For the record I was impressed 8-12 months ago with your business ethics however I must have been blinded to the facts I stated above. This is a discussion in no way have I advertised. I am happy to show any moderator here or any member the facts. :cool:

Thanks
:cool: :stickout:


Well put,i thought i was the only one that was noticing what you mentioned. :agree:

Originally posted by Bling Bling
Well put,i thought i was the only one that was noticing what you mentioned. :agree:
Well Robert's certianly entitled to an opinion. I personally couldn't care less. But when he posts that a server that's nearly full has loads of 0.00, 0.01, 0.00, and then follows that up with -

We are happy with the setup, creates less hassels ensures greater reliability and thats what our customers deserve and hence why are signup rate is very good , we don't have the lowest prices in the market but we have one of the most reliable for the pricing offered.

And if that's not blowing your own trumpet, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Bling Bling
Well put,i thought i was the only one that was noticing what you mentioned. :agree:

I think a lot of people see this. I Guess that is just Bob now days. :)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I think a lot of people see this. I Guess that is just Bob now days. :)
Not too worried about what folks think. I comment on what I see and if that comes accross badly to some folks, then so be it. Life's way too short to be worry about such. Even you, Umbilly, have plenty of faults. That's what makes WHT so interesting. :D

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
No big deal Robert. If you want to blow your own trumpet and pretend that you have server loads of 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 on a box that's nearly full, then whatever. :rolleyes:

Trust me, I have nothing to be jealous of. I see someone blowing their own trumpet with ridiculous claims, I comment on that. :D

Crikey Bob. What is the deal? We have tons of boxes like this. Did you not think that some limit their boxes by target revenues? We never place more then a certain number on any box. Sometimes a reseller will add a few more domains over our limit, but they are almost ALL at our target number. I would say 50% run at loads of .01 - .1 on average.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
But when he posts that a server that's nearly full has loads of 0.00, 0.01, 0.00

Nearly full as in that's how many clients are going on to it, not nearly full as in we're almost out of disk space. lol

Sure a few single sites could blow it all away, but we've got all zero's on one full and one almost full reseller box at the moment. It's not rocket science, nor blowing a "trumpet". It's just the way it is.

I shared a server with Robert once (I'm sure he wont mind me saying so), and he keeps a tight ship as well.

Gary

Bobby this is a discussion board for discussions. 95% of people that will come here are hosts themselves and hence have no interest in our product. If I am not allowed to express my views and thoughts well what is the point of these forums. The comment was a direct result to a question go back two pages. I even quoted the question. Now if the question was not aksed I would not have responded.

Originally posted by LightningWeb
Isn't H-Sphere supposed to be able to handle clustering? I was reading about it briefly the other day.

It's not only supposed to handle clustering, it will not function to it's fullest capability without it.

The MAJOR advantage of HSPHERE is the fact that pSoft help you setup the clustering, they are truly an amazing company, we put a new cluster up last week, and they had the entire cluster setup in 48 hours, fully functioning, and awaiting propogation, i'd suggest pSoft's product to anyone and everyone.

Originally posted by MN-Robert
Bobby this is a discussion board for discussions.
Please don't ever call me Bobby.
95% of people that will come here are hosts themselves and hence have no interest in our product. If I am not allowed to express my views and thoughts well what is the point of these forums. The comment was a direct result to a question go back two pages. I even quoted the question. Now if the question was not aksed I would not have responded.
I read your post as you blowing your own trumpet. Sounded like pure ad_copy, imo. I still stand by this. It's the way it came accross for me and I commented on such.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Sounded like pure ad_copy, imo.

You only find what you look for on forums like this. I'd call it contributing to the conversation by citing some personal experience. Robert hardly needs to spring any "ad_copy" on here.

Originally posted by MN-Robert
. . . The fact that HTTPME place over 1000 domains per box to maximise your profits does not indicate a trend in other hosts . . .
I'll ignore all your name calling, ranting and waving, but I will correct you on that issue. We do not place 1000 domains per box as you so proudly proclaim. We place 40 domains per server, and these domains are Mutli-domain/Reseller packages. The Multi-domain to Reseller mix is 80/20. Reseller clients will typically push their accounts much harder, than a Multi-domain account.

Each client can use a certian amount of disk space and data transfer combined for their domains. On average, each of our clients will setup 15 to 20 domains, inside those usage parameters. Some more and some much less. If a server needs lightning up, then we will move some clients to a newer machine. Flexibility is essential. :)

Monte's post summed things up well -
Originally posted by Monte
I used to aim for 300 sites per server more or less but found it was very hard to control the number of sites when you are dealing with resellers. I can only control the resources they use and I keep those well in-line of the servers capabilities.
The Reseller/Multi-Domain model is not for everyone, and it does open up the server for more chance of abuse, IMO. Each to his own. I easily sleep with our current model, but I could not sleep if I was setting up 300 domains per server with Unmetered bandwidth for each domain. But someone we all know does just that and it's working for them. :D

Back to the topic... one of the best comments I've thread is this,

Originally posted by NexDog
As long as apache doesn't crash, services are stable and load stays around 1 on a PIII or less than 2 on a dual xeon, the amount of domains does not matter. The only thing it can affect is the amount of time the backup has to run. That is our biggest challenge at the moment.

The key to how many domains can be put on a server all relies on monitoring and keeping everything stable. Also, you must spend money to make money, so never cram a server- just buy another.

Originally posted by surpass
Back to the topic... one of the best comments I've thread is this,

The key to how many domains can be put on a server all relies on monitoring and keeping everything stable. Also, you must spend money to make money, so never cram a server- just buy another.

Yep 1 or 1000 is irrelevant, if a server is overloaded it's overloaded.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

The Reseller/Multi-Domain model is not for everyone, and it does open up the server for more chance of abuse, IMO. Each to his own. I easily sleep with our current model, but I could not sleep if I was setting up 300 domains per server with Unmetered bandwidth for each domain. But someone we all know does just that and it's working for them. :D

Considering many people who participate at WHT have hosted longer then two years (Your sig says 'since 2001' but we know it was Dec of 2001. ;)), and they are still around and pleasing customers tells me it is irrelevant if their model will let you sleep at night.

I just found it funny how you did not believe Robert and his post. Those who do not believe are doing things to far opposite to fully grasp the fact it can be done.

This might be hard to believe, but some host have quit a few shared servers and some cluster. What does this mean? Simple spread loading of domains or load balancing of resources. If a reseller or site is causing issues, a simple move will change all this. No one said they are locked into a set amount on EVERY server. Targets are set. If high use sites come into play, move them to a server set up for that.

Another thing people miss when wondering how competitors load domains to servers is what that company's target clientel is - which you did point out in your post. Yours is multiple site/Reseller type clientel. A much harder variable to control then a mom and pop environmoent for example. If you catter to webmasters and offer cheap multi-site plans, you will suffer more abuse chances then someone who allows one site and charges more for small business sites.

For me it is easy to set a target number of domains based off of what we want in revenues for that server(s). It is then easier to work with the larger variable - resource use - if needed.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Considering many people who participate at WHT have hosted longer then two years (Your sig says 'since 2001' but we know it was Dec of 2001. ;)), and they are still around and pleasing customers tells me it is irrelevant if their model will let you sleep at night.
Get over it. Dec 2001 is 2001, the last time I checked. :)
I just found it funny how you did not believe Robert and his post. Those who do not believe are doing things to far opposite to fully grasp the fact it can be done.
It's just it sounded more like blowing one's own trumpet than anything else. You read it your way, and I'll read it mine. We'll agree to disagree.
Another thing people miss when wondering how competitors load domains to servers is what that company's target clientel is. Yours is multiple site/Reseller type clientel. A much harder variable to control then a mom and pop environmoent for example. If you catter to webmasters and offer cheap multi-site plans, you will suffer more abuse chances then someone who allows one site and charges more for small business sites.
Most of our clients just want to run a bunch of their own domains in the 1 account, rather than paying for each domain to be hosted individually. They're mostly very low usage domains. They also like to experiment with sites etc. So they'll buy a bunch of domains and see what happens to the sites they setup. The Reseller clients will push things much harder, as you're more than aware, given you offer Unlimited domain reseller accounts too. We prefer the multi-domain accounts, as they are also much less support wise, than the Reseller accounts. Our Reseller to Multi-domain mix is around 80/20.
For me it is easy to set a target number of domains based off of what we want in revenues for that server(s). It is then easier to work with the larger variable - resource use - if needed.
We setup 40 domain accounts that are multi-domain enabled, per server. There's our revenue target met for that server. It's actually a tad higher than what's needed, but we allow for a few of those clients to shutdown their accounts, so the figure drops back a bit. We won't [it's extremely rare if we do] add any new accounts to that server, after that point.

Each of those domain accounts can setup domains in their account, but they cannot use more resources than have been allocated to that domain's account. We have different business models, as compared to your standard virtual account servers [not talking about your Unlimited domain Reseller accounts], where you add only 300 domains to the server, with each domain allowed X amount of disk space and unmetered bandwidth. I do have a lot of respect for you UBC, and do like these little chats. :D

Speaking of picking up steam, my mboard was basicly dead with a couple of users until a local tele station closed the mboard on their website and some of the members migrated to my mboard. A couple of times they mentioned the Current events section on my site on their news to talk about an issue and I'll get a few more members each time.


Originally posted by Editor
We hit a brick wall about 6 months ago with 4 specific domains. Out the blue, they picked up some steam (almost overnight) and we were caught completely unawares. Minor traffic overall, but bulk hits...so we moved them and they were happy to co-operate. I don't consider the first server in question to be over-subscribed in the least, but it proved how quickly things can need addressing.

Fun and games. :)

G

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
We have different business models, as compared to your standard virtual account servers [not talking about your Unlimited domain Reseller accounts], where you add only 300 domains to the server, with each domain allowed X amount of disk space and unmetered bandwidth. I do have a lot of respect for you UBC, and do like these little chats. :D

Ha Ha. I love it Bobby. :) Considering no one has ever been told who I work for or what I own, you found out? hmm.... LOL. Go with it and have fun. Maybe I can add it to my resume, because I have had a lot of speculations now over the years.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Ha Ha. I love it Bobby. :)
Please loose the Bobby bit. Bobby is not my name.
Considering no one has ever been told who I work for or what I own, you found out? hmm.... LOL. Go with it and have fun. Maybe I can add it to my resume, because I have had a lot of speculations now over the years.
I know more than enough and we'll just leave it at that. Let's just say I spent a lazy 5 hours a month or 2 back, and basically read through all your posts here, and added all the clues up. Why not at least clear up for us if you offer Unmetered Bandwidth or not? ;)

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

Please loose the Bobby bit. Bobby is not my name.

I know more than enough and we'll just leave it at that. Let's just say I spent a lazy 5 hours a month or 2 back, and basically read through all your posts here, and added all the clues up. Why not at least clear up for us if you offer Unmetered Bandwidth or not? ;)

I will not clear up anything to help you on your little scavanger hunt. (Someone needs a new hobby :)). But I will say we do not offer unlimited bandwidth.

Take care.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I will not clear up anything to help you on your little scavanger hunt. (Someone needs a new hobby :)). But I will say we do not offer unlimited bandwidth.

Take care.
How about Unmetered Bandwidth? There's a difference you know. :)

You guys need to stop bashing each other and get back to running your hosting biz.

I can speak from first hand dealings, httpme.com is a top company. I had personal dealings with Bob for several months and he runs a good business!

When you guys disrespect Bob with the name calling it just makes you look a ten year old. Grow up!

I dont even see how you could pack thousands on a single server without having major problems. At most I think 200 should be the limit. Anyway with that many clients buy a new server and start over again. Surely you would have enough to buy a new server.

i wonder how many domains you could put on the new virginia tech g5 cluster.....

Aww, Bob's never attacked me. I feel left out now :(

But for the record, we keep a max of 150 sites per server. That includes domains hosted by resellers. Most have around 100.

Why not more per server? Well, they could handle it, but 4 pages of sites to read in WHM is more than enough lol

so ... what's next? should I get more popcorns?

Nah... i guess the show is over :(

Someone say popcorn? Next question...How many popcorn per box? lol

Anyway thanks for all the input. :) On the other mboard where the discussion started about the per server thing, most favoured fewer then 200-300 sites per server. I was reading a simular thread on a host's support forum about this, since that host places over a 1000 per box. But they deleted the thread.

Originally posted by FHDave
so ... what's next? should I get more popcorns?