For the last few months ive been offering reseller plans with unlimted domains, this works fine for the majority of my customers, but i get the occasional person who wants to host 250 domains on my $30/month reseller account.

I would like to put a set limit of domains for each reseller but i fear if i do so then i will stop getting resellers because they will go with companies that do offer unlimited domains even though they probably wont go anywhere near the limit i give them.

I was thinking of putting a limit of 100,125,150 and 200 domains for my reseller plans. What do you think?

well, I think it is best if you keep it "unlimited"
but yeah, definitely put some upper limit there....

because, it would be unreasonable if someone tried to host thousands of domains on one account

Another approach is to keep the unlimited, but include a minimum size the site can be.

I set a limit on each plan...one that is quite generous, but nonetheless a limit. And, the only potential customers that limit turns away are those you wouldn't want...those such as the one you just described.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
i get the occasional person who wants to host 250 domains on my $30/month reseller account.

And what exactly is the problem with that?

And what exactly is the problem with that?


Quite simple really, i need to make a profit! How many sites do you think its safe to put on a server? Lets take 900(a very high figure)

With a server coming in at atleast $600/month I wouldnt be able to host even 4 reseller accounts with 250 domains each. I would only make $120 of a $600 server, not exactly a good business plan there.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
Quite simple really, i need to make a profit! How many sites do you think its safe to put on a server? Lets take 900(a very high figure).

If each site is using 4MB of disk space and 48MB/month of transfer, you could easily fit ten thousand such sites on a single server.

The number of "sites" is a complete red herring. Server performance will depend upon the total load produced by the sites, and ten small sites will produce exactly the same load as a single site of ten times the size.

Originally posted by 21inchguns
well, I think it is best if you keep it "unlimited"
but yeah, definitely put some upper limit there....

because, it would be unreasonable if someone tried to host thousands of domains on one account
You have to read the bold part a couple of times to appreciate it.

Alan, as with 'unlimited' anything... if you aren't willing to actually offer it, then don't. If your actual limit is 100 (or whatever), state that. Will you lose customers to 'unlimited' hosts? Most likely, but to me that's worth it if your reasoning is honesty.

Yes, there are people who think they'll actually be able to host and unlimited amount of domains on a reseller plan, but they have to know (via not being told otherwise), that this is simply not true and that there is ineed, a limit.

Wise words chicken as allways, but the problem is how many sign ups am i likely to lose! If my sign ups reduce by half for example then i simply cant afford to not offer "unlimited" domains.


The number of "sites" is a complete red herring. Server performance will depend upon the total load produced by the sites, and ten small sites will produce exactly the same load as a single site of ten times the size.

Its a good theory but it simply doesnt work in practice. A 10mb site or bigger is normally just the same as a 1mb site but with an image gallery or some downloads. With 10 times as many sites, you get 10 times as many e-mails being sent, 10 times as many dns look ups 10 times as many people connecting to ftp, 10 times as many people using the control panel.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
but the problem is how many sign ups am i likely to lose! If my sign ups reduce by half for example then i simply cant afford to not offer "unlimited" domains.

Then you're probably beginning to notice a flaw in your business plan. You're saying you'll offer unlimited domains, but in reality, you aren't...

I haven't gone through your site, but I presume there's a disk space, and transfer limit correct?

The issue would probably come to a head if someone was looking for a place to sell brochure-ware sites (single page, logo, address, description), and charge $5 or less a month to businesses, giving them a domain name with an e-mail address.

It's a good idea, and would work great under such a plan as you offer, especially as they could jam hundreds of domains in there at $5 a pop.

Put a limit on it. You'll keep your business running in the black and you'll be waking up in the mornings feeling like an honest man :)

Greg Moore

I agree with putting a limit on the number of domains, keeping the number generous yet within your margin. It's a judgment call as to what the number is (I'd say 100), so only you will know how to factor it in. Then, add a little side note saying "contact us if you need more" or "for a nominal fee. . ."

Anyway, that's my two shekels.

It's a hard decision to make, if you offer unlimited domains, some people will take it this far, putting hundreds of the domains on the server.
However, if you don't, you will lose signups - until recently our site wasn't clear on whether we offered unlimited domains or not, and many people were asking about whether we did or not...

My opinion is yes, offer unlimited. Once they are at a stage of using more than a certain amount of transfer accross all the domains, suggest they move to a dedicated server.


Matt

OK, from reading this thread "unlimited" is OK? right? Because in other threads I read from your guys post unlimited is the antichrist when it comes to bandwidth. They are the same damn thing. Don't offer unlimited ANYTHING unless you intend on honoring it. I love how you guys argue unlimited one thing is OK and another is not. :confused:

As you can see, someone will always abuse unlimited. You will always find the guy who wants to put 250 small sites for just e-mail use on your server if you offer unlimited. Again - nothing is unlimited. There is *always* a limit somewhere. In this case you are using web space to limit. Problem is thatyou offer too much and people abuse it when coupled with "unlimited".

I'm done.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
You will always find the guy who wants to put 250 small sites for just e-mail use on your server if you offer unlimited.

And as long as he's still paying for the disk space and bandwidth which his 250 sites worth of email is using, what's the problem?

it doesnt take any space to send mail, so you could have 20,000 e-mail only sites and completely kill the server.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
OK, from reading this thread "unlimited" is OK? right? Because in other threads I read from your guys post unlimited is the antichrist when it comes to bandwidth.

I was thinking much the same myself. If you offer it, offer it to everyone, or don't offer it at all. Like anything to do with playing the numbers, if someone throws you out and you end up sucking a lemon because of it, you pretty well SOL. They are going to be people who sign up under such a plan for the express reason of using it to full advantage. They're not the bad guy... that's the plan they were looking for.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...

Now, am I missing something here that makes the 'U' word justified in this case?

Greg Moore

Originally posted by akashik
. . . . . . . Now, am I missing something here that makes the 'U' word justified in this case?

Greg Moore Nope. :rolleyes:

And as long as he's still paying for the disk space and bandwidth which his 250 sites worth of email is using, what's the problem?

Nothing if you offer it and honor it. However they may see this .... 200 - 5 MB e-mail sites x 5 customers. [[Hell this could be a good business to start up. Offer $1 e-mail service for your customers domain name and allow 5 MBs of space. Use these unlimited domains guys to host you]]. Lots of fluff - no money. Also, if you are not using a unlimited license for lets say Plesk or Ensim, you increased your overhead there too.

Also, it isn't so much "...what's the problem?" as it is "Why is there a problem? Becuase if you play numbers games, be pre-pared to lose once in a while. In most cases the numbers game is a risk. However I have seen it turn into a gamble in some cases - unlimited bandwidth for example.

Dennis, where have you been? Vacation?

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I love how you guys argue unlimited one thing is OK and another is not. :confused:

To clarify, I was not suggesting offering "unlimited" domains but rather a specific, but tempting, amount.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
. . . . . Dennis, where have you been? Vacation? LOL :D Vacation? Vacation?? If someone would have explained more clearly how, if you choose web hosting as a career, you must give up all other forms of life (vacations included) I may have chosen differently.

Aside from agreeing with UmBillyCord on his views towards unlimited.:rolleyes:
I've been busy working out the details of a new adventure.
I still come here and read every day. But don't post as often as I used to. :rolleyes:

Seems like SplashHost.com has lots to think about.
I wonder how he will choose.

I've crunched all the numbers and I think that the new reseller programs offering unlimited domains and only paying for space, bandwidth will fade over time. The reason for this is because no matter how many ways I figure it up, I make almost 2x the profit selling $14.95 single accounts then I do selling for example MCHosts plans (not to point them out, it's just the site I am most familiar with doing this).

Say for example you have 50 of MCHosts smallests plans on your server. Thats 50Gigs of space just for the sites end of things and quite a bit of bandwidth at 12GB's a pop (600GB to be exact). So 50 account on a server could gross them $1750 per server. And that will probably have anywhere from 250-500 sites in total as an estimate of 5-10 sites per reseller averaged out.

Then take a server, toss 200 sites at $15/mth on it and you make $3000/mth off the same server which by all accounts will probably have many less domains on it. All on a 30GB or so drive.

Now the gross for the reseller way could be brought up to $3K a month by increasing the number of small accounts to 85, but thats some huge drives your going to need there and I would hate to see how many domains would be on that server when it fills up.

Now I am not saying $1750 gross per server is really bad, but shared hosting has some of the slimmest profit margins in the industry and I am not sure if a profit can be made from those number once you get to a certain size and real business expenses cut in. It's easier when you are working with 1-10 servers. But imagine the expenses for 25, 50, 100 servers and so on.

Most resellers dont go near their bandwidth or disk space usage, allthough im sure mchost will claim they use it all :)

Im pretty sure this kind of plan isnt going to go anywhere, its been around for as long as i can remember(2 years lol) and im sure its going to stay. As long as their is a market for this kind of plan there will be people offering this kind of plan.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
Most resellers dont go near their bandwidth or disk space usage, allthough im sure mchost will claim they use it all :)

No, but it's harder to play the numbers game with these type of reseller accounts then it is with set domain accounts. We know on average what a normal account will use. But there is no way to get an average I would think for someone who is reselling their space would try and use it to the max so overselling is a VERY big gamble compared to the normal way or overselling.

Actually, MCHost doesn't claim that.......

I remember kiwi saying 90% of resellers will use all their bandwidth, or something like that. Anyway were going off topic

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
I remember kiwi saying 90% of resellers will use all their bandwidth, or something like that. Anyway were going off topic

I believe this could be true, it's just something that takes time. AS soon as a server is filled up with the max clients you will put on it, the resources it uses will still be small. But think after a year when all the resellers on that box have had time to add accounts. A reseller must grow to survive and when they do...

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
Im pretty sure this kind of plan isnt going to go anywhere, its been around for as long as i can remember(2 years lol) and im sure its going to stay. As long as their is a market for this kind of plan there will be people offering this kind of plan.

Sure. Bulk reselling has been around for donkey's years and it's a fine way to do business. It adds another string to the bow when people are looking for ways to sell. However, I remember most (if not all), or the older bulk resellers having a cap (50 domains or so).

I'm happy to stand corrected on that of course. When I resold, I went the way of the individual plan. :)

Greg Moore

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
I would like to put a set limit of domains for each reseller but i fear if i do so then i will stop getting resellers because they will go with companies that do offer unlimited domains even though they probably wont go anywhere near the limit i give them.
You could justify another kind of business plan by changing just a few words:

"I would like to put a set limit of transfer for each customer but i fear if i do so then i will stop getting customers because they will go with companies that do offer unlimited transfer even though they probably wont go anywhere near the limit i give them."

Same logic used by hosts marketing unlimited transfer or diskspace: "other people do it, so if I don't I will lose customers."

Well with 6 votes to 21 i think i know what i have to do :)

Just need to decide on the numbers now..

I wonder if any hosts will follow in my foot steps, or maybe ill need to quickly change it back again.

Originally posted by JayC
"I would like to put a set limit of transfer for each customer but i fear if i do so then i will stop getting customers because they will go with companies that do offer unlimited transfer even though they probably wont go anywhere near the limit i give them."


There's a difference. You have to pay for bandwidth which your customers use. If you fill up a hard drive, you have to pay for another drive.

Unless you're using a control panel which is (ick!) licensed only for a limited number of sites, increasing the number of sites does not result in any increased costs.

cperciva, have you ever ran a server before?

increasing the number of sites does not result in any increased costs.

You are kidding right?

More domains = more people = more things to break = more support hours = more money.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
cperciva, have you ever ran a server before?

Yes. And I've also written a variety of management scripts and have a number of feature patches to FreeBSD which I always install, if it matters.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
You are kidding right?

More domains = more people = more things to break = more support hours = more money.

???

Somehow "the server is broken, but if I try to make sure nobody uses it then maybe I can get away without anyone noticing" doesn't seem a very good working philosophy... if things *can* break, then fix them so that they can't break. Don't just hope that nobody will break them.

Well have you ever actually tried putting as many sites on a server as you can? I dont just mean setting up a server and creating as many accounts on it as you can, i mean with people who actually use these accounts. You will soon find that it doesnt quite work like you think.

Originally posted by cperciva


There's a difference. You have to pay for bandwidth which your customers use. If you fill up a hard drive, you have to pay for another drive.

Unless you're using a control panel which is (ick!) licensed only for a limited number of sites, increasing the number of sites does not result in any increased costs.

That basically sums up my opinion too....

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
Well have you ever actually tried putting as many sites on a server as you can? I dont just mean setting up a server and creating as many accounts on it as you can, i mean with people who actually use these accounts. You will soon find that it doesnt quite work like you think.

Alan, at approximately what level of site numbers did you start experiencing problems? [edit: bad english]

We had a reseller (and i think i mentioned this to you) that put a lot of sites on the server he was on, and it was fine...

Originally posted by cperciva
if things *can* break, then fix them so that they can't break. Don't just hope that nobody will break them.


If we could make them so they wouldn't break, there wouldn't be any need for sys admins after the first install. But it doesn't work that way. But we can all dream :)

Originally posted by JeremyL
If we could make them so they wouldn't break, there wouldn't be any need for sys admins after the first install.

Well, apart from installing security patches.

But it doesn't work that way. But we can all dream :)

Doesn't it? I've seen servers go for months without any administrators logging on (status reports were being mailed off-server, so they still knew what was going on). Or at least I thought I saw it; maybe `last` was lying to me.

Somehow "the server is broken, but if I try to make sure nobody uses it then maybe I can get away without anyone noticing" doesn't seem a very good working philosophy... if things *can* break, then fix them so that they can't break. Don't just hope that nobody will break them.

Gosh. Thanks. I never knew it was that easy. I feel like such a fool.

If you drive a car 10 miles a month, you will have less need of repairs then if you drive 1000 a month. Tires, oil change, etc...

If you have 1000 sites on a server, there is a 100 times better chance someone will run a bad script, then if there were only 10.

There's a difference. You have to pay for bandwidth which your customers use. If you fill up a hard drive, you have to pay for another drive.

If BW cost as much as HDs, we would see just as many unlimited host for BW as we will see for domains. Doesn't make it right. The truth still holds - nothing is unlimited!

You have murder and you have assault. You are trying to say one is a worse crime, while the other you can get away with, with less repercussions - which is true. We are trying to say, they are still both crimes.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
someone will run a bad script

And that's why you should be using suexec and login classes.

Originally posted by akashik
Then you're probably beginning to notice a flaw in your business plan. You're saying you'll offer unlimited domains, but in reality, you aren't...

Don't want to offend you, Alan, but the post by Greg is by far the best in this thread. :)

Im not offended, if there wasnt a flaw in it i would of never of started the thread.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
but i get the occasional person who wants to host 250 domains on my $30/month reseller account.
I don't see a problem with this. With a few servers you should be able to balance them pretty well, which is what we do. While some servers have 5 large resellers, other servers have 20 small resellers.

Kiwi, do you want to get back in touch with that person and send him to you then? Ill be more than happy to do that for you.

P.S Kiwi with 5 resellers on a box do you actually make any money?

Originally posted by Kiwi
While some servers have 5 large resellers, other servers have 20 small resellers.

But only if the 5 resellers pay enough for the whole server - or you will loose money, at least for this server. And I simply don't like the idea of loosing money at all, even for one server. :D

You pojnt out the 5. I point out the 20. 20x35 is $700. Not even close to enough of a return in my eyes no matter what the box costs. Because the truth is, the Box is one of the cheaper expenses.

A 'large' reseller, with more domains, will be paying a larger monthly fee, so you can afford to place just a few accounts on the server, because each of the account's owners will be paying more per month.

In theory it should work, but in reality do you find it always works Kiwi?

Matt

Originally posted by Kiwi

I don't see a problem with this.

I do. 250 domains (to use that example). Reseller handles most of the support issues, but has to call on the upstream occasionally for this and that. The more sites packed in there, the more support requirement. He's only getting $30 a month for it.

Now maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have 1-3 sites on the box totalling that much in fees than 250 (even with the reseller catching most of it)

Maybe it's not the direct line of thinking as far as the thread is going, but it's something that should probably be considered.

Greg Moore

Matt, we are talking about Alans business plan, and he currently offers a reseller plan to host unlimited domains for 30$ per month :)

And that's why you should be using suexec and login classes.

Ok, I see where this is going. Maybe you are the self proclaimed Einstein of the server/Internet world, but I am not. If my car runs out of gas, I should have been driving a solar powered car - right?

I don't see a problem with this.

Kiwi, of course you don't. Because that is your business model and service offering. If you did have a problem with it, you would be ignorant. :)

Well kiwi does allmost the exact same for $35. Do you have a max amount of sites per box kiwi?

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Ok, I see where this is going. Maybe you are the self proclaimed Einstein of the server/Internet world, but I am not. If my car runs out of gas, I should have been driving a solar powered car - right?

No. My point is this: For every problem there is a solution (and usually several). Eventually all sorts of problems are going to happen; but they should only happen once, because even if you don't know the solution, someone else will.

Originally posted by Walter
Matt, we are talking about Alans business plan, and he currently offers a reseller plan to host unlimited domains for 30$ per month :)

My question is related to Alan's business plan.

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
My question is related to Alan's business plan.

Oh, sorry, :blush: this thread is quite hot.

Originally posted by cperciva


No. My point is this: For every problem there is a solution (and usually several). Eventually all sorts of problems are going to happen; but they should only happen once, because even if you don't know the solution, someone else will.

Ideliastically. Yes. I wish it worked this way for us. However sometimes those solutions out price your ability to fix them. Also, there are just too many ways for things to pop up with servers. Especially in volume.

Originally posted by Walter
Oh, sorry, :blush: this thread is quite hot.

I've received 15 email notifications in the past hour... I wonder how much bandwidth WHT uses with all those emails?

cperciva, not everything can be fixed. With many sites you have many people using the server at the same time which uses many resources which slows the server down.

Geez i think this is the fastest growing thread ive ever started, by the time i write this ive got an e-mail saying somone else has already posted.

Originally posted by cperciva
I've received 15 email notifications in the past hour... I wonder how much bandwidth WHT uses with all those emails?

OT, too: Or see it this way: for how much traffic are you personally accountable with a post count > 1000?
:D

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
cperciva, not everything can be fixed. With many sites you have many people using the server at the same time which uses many resources which slows the server down.


Yes, but that's just the issue of *total* bandwidth usage; it doesn't depend upon how many "sites" it's split up between.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
With many sites you have many people using the server at the same time which uses many resources which slows the server down.

Which means they will be using more transfer, so paying a higher monthly fee. ;)

Originally posted by Walter
OT, too: Or see it this way: for how much traffic are you personally accountable with a post count > 1000?

5GB maybe? I'd guess that I probably view 50-100 pages for each post I make.

[QUOTE]
Which means they will be using more transfer, so paying a higher monthly fee.
[QUOTE]
Trust me you can have a lot of users but only use a little amount of bandwidth so they dont need to buy any more.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
Trust me you can have a lot of users but only use a little amount of bandwidth so they dont need to buy any more.

... which just comes back to the point that a million users who don't do anything cost practically nil.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
Which means they will be using more transfer, so paying a higher monthly fee.
Trust me you can have a lot of users but only use a little amount of bandwidth so they dont need to buy any more.

Of course, but now we are running circles.
Ok, the number game - but at the beginning of the thread you stated that there is a percentage of people really using the resources you offered.

Umm no, they take up all the resources on your server, which costs $600/month.

If you have 100 sites using 10 mb space and 100mb tranfser whats the difference in 1 site using 1Gb space, 10gb transfer.

Originally posted by Tetraboy
If you have 100 sites using 10 mb space and 100mb tranfser whats the difference in 1 site using 1Gb space, 10gb transfer.

Maybe support? :stickout

True, but the reseller has to do the support not the webhost. So to the webhost its the same ammount of space/banwidth. Whats the difference?

No its not support, have you read what ive been saying in other posts at all?

Originally posted by Walter


But only if the 5 resellers pay enough for the whole server - or you will loose money, at least for this server. And I simply don't like the idea of loosing money at all, even for one server. :D
If you put 5 resellers that pay $20 on a small box, of course it won't work. You need to do a little thinking how to balance the accounts. It works for us, resellers are happy, financials are as expected and we're now getting a new box online every 2-4 days.

It really seems to me as all the hosts out there is treating this as a double edged sword

When a unlimited mb/bandwidth host arrives and tires to plaster their services, you bash them so hard, they never return, but you state its ok for a host to offer unlimited domains.

Unlimited is unlimited and there's no such thing. I think if every company that likes to bash unlimited mb/gig, you should step up to the plate because it seems to me that your in a catch 22 position, One hand its ok to allow a host to offer unlimited domains, but on the other its not ok to offer unlimited mb/gigs

Am I not right or ?

we're now getting a new box online every 2-4 days


Ok kiwi, your the reseller giant. (Places crown on his head)

Originally posted by SplashHost.com


Ok kiwi, your the reseller giant. (Places crown on his head)
I'm trying to say that the business model works if it is done the right way :)

Im pretty sure it does work, It sounds to me like your company is big enough for you not to worry about the profit on individual accounts.

Originally posted by AlaskanWolf
One hand its ok to allow a host to offer unlimited domains, but on the other its not ok to offer unlimited mb/gigs

Am I not right or ?

I think the general consensus -- as much as there ever is one -- is that you can offer whatever you like, as long as you're actually willing to provide it. If someone actually offered unlimited bandwidth, everyone would be wonderfully happy (well, apart from those who went out of business). It's when people *advertise* unlimited bandwidth, when it is actually very much limited.

Well I think it can work, but I think the ones that will be successful in the long run are the ones offering VPS's like remarkablehosting.com that have no chance of the reseller taking up to many resources.

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
but the problem is how many sign ups am i likely to lose! If my sign ups reduce by half for example then i simply cant afford to not offer "unlimited" domains.



Then you need to do some serious re-structuring of your hosting packages and figure out what will work.

You won't be able to sustain your business if you don't. Look at all the hosting companies that go belly-up. There's a reason for that, ya know! ;)

--Tina

we run this type of program. most clients dont abuse the system
about %20 do abuse things and we cut them no slack on billing for overages of anykind or we ask them to upgrade as they use excess resources.

only a couple had refused, we asked them to leave and they decided we were worth it in the end

this opens another sticky subject- that of changing prices on clients--not a good practice.


g w/o centavos

we run this type of program. most clients dont abuse the system about %20 do abuse things and we cut them no slack on billing for overages of anykind or we ask them to upgrade as they use excess resources.


How can one abuse something that is unlimited?? They might be using 1000 domains and still be very far from their limit (remember, you told them they had unlimited domains, didn't you?).

Please define "abuse" and "excessive resources" in this context.

I would say put a limit of one domain for each dollar spent each mont. So if a package is $30 a mont, limit to 30 domains. $1 per domain per month is way more then fair and will enable them to sell really small packages if that is what they wish. Most will probably still have less then that before needing to upgrade anyway.

I do have a question for all the people running these types of programs. Do you allow your resellers to oversell their disk space or bandwidth? In other words if you allow them 1GB of disk space, can they create 10 packages with 200MB of space each in the control panel as long as the total doesn't go over the 1GB? If you would just not allow them to oversell their disk space or bandwidth, you could prevent most abusive usage.

Wow, lots of talk. Well believe it or not we went through the same process. We started out limiting the domains. First of all there are many things you have to consider. How do you make money, that's the bottom line. After all that's why you're in business!! So with that said, here's how I look at it. Domains take up resources, you can't just have a DNS entry on your server and not have it use resources. So instead of worrying about the number of domains a reseller can host, worry about the limits on resources.

So you give them unlimited domains but you limit on these factors
disk space for mail, web space, databases
bandwidth
All of these things are resources that domains use. So if you give them unlimited domains, make sure you're charging adequte amount of money for those resources so you make up for the fact that someone will try and sell plans where they only give customers 5mb of space and 500mb of bandwidth. The bottom line is you have to do your math and figure out how YOU will make money not what other companies are doing. If you don't make money then why do it at all. Other companies might be getting server for $800 one time while you pay $200 a month for it plus licenses fees etc.

Do what's best for you. MAKE MONEY! that's it.