I was considering two options for running some websites in my house:

Option 1: Paying for 384kbps/6mbps ADSL and hosting 3 to 5 small sites (less than 8gb transfer a month each... if that).

Option 2: Paying for 1.5mbps/1.5mbps SDSL and hosting around 20 of the same small sites.

My only goal is to make the DSL pay for itself. I'm not seeking to make an enterprise out of this... Just learn something hosting sites for friends and local businesses. Would I have enough concurrent bandwidth on those DSL accounts? (I know that I would have enough total transfer each month.) I'm just wondering if my connection would be able to handle each site with a few users at a time without being saturated. I still want to use the extra download bandwidth for my own purposes.

Thoughts?

Read this (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21350) thread.

Originally posted by Xichekolas
I was considering two options for running some websites in my house:

Option 1: Paying for 384kbps/6mbps ADSL and hosting 3 to 5 small sites (less than 8gb transfer a month each... if that).

Option 2: Paying for 1.5mbps/1.5mbps SDSL and hosting around 20 of the same small sites.


Option 1: Really bad idea... since 384k will be your upstream serving bandwidth.

Option 2: Maybe.. just to get by. Still a bad idea in my opinion.



(I know that I would have enough total transfer each month.) I'm just wondering if my connection would be able to handle each site with a few users at a time without being saturated. I still want to use the extra download bandwidth for my own purposes.

Thoughts?

The problem is that DSL is an end-user product. It's not "snappy" enough to serve the web in my opinion. I've done about 600 installs of DSL and a few of them "Just had to" serve their company website from their 512k dsl conneciton. That lasted about 2 months.. The latency is just too much on the upstream.. Don't get me wrong, DSL ROCKS!!... just not for serving anyhting in it's upstream.

Barry