If there is enough interest, we will in future only host 100 web sites per 1Ghz P3 server, unlike most hosts which host between 200 and 600 sites on this kind of hardware. We would be doing this WITHOUT increasing our prices.

Would this by a significant factor for you when deciding on a web host?

Edit: As people come here to the special offers forum to look for hosting, I hope this is the correct place to post the poll.

Well the number of sites per server certainly isnt just the number.
It depends on the Feautures of each site and the site itself.

Like we have different servers for each different plan so thats almost how we calculate the amount of sites on each server. we might have 3-4 sites on 1 server or 270 sites on another server with the same specifications of hardware.

The only difference is the sites hosted on these servers which determine if the server still has the ability to host sites or not without effecting the quality.

Oh I agree with you completely. We also have a couple of servers now which only host 3 sites for example.

But these servers with 100 domains would be just small virtual accounts using an average of 300 megs of bandwidth and 30 megs of disk space each, if not less. These are the types of accounts where many hosts cram 600 onto a single server...

On todays hardware you can cram a lot more than 600 sites on a single server if they are light weight.

I suppose it could be used to woo people into using your services, but I just can't see the actual benefit of limiting to a fixed number of sites rather than, say, a fixed load.

Interesting question though. I will pay close attention to this one.

Originally posted by DizixCom
On todays hardware you can cram a lot more than 600 sites on a single server if they are light weight.

I suppose it could be used to woo people into using your services, but I just can't see the actual benefit of limiting to a fixed number of sites rather than, say, a fixed load.

Technically, today's hardware would be able to support 600 sites easily. Heck even 1500 sites like that shouldn't cause too much of a problem. That said, the fewer sites you host on each server, the less likely that an abuser is going to bring down thousands of your clients all at once. Plus he'll be easier to track down.

So I think that in the real world that we live in, there are actually advantages to hosting less clients per server -- it isn't just a gimmick to advertise.

Good points. Also disaster recovery is much easier when you have fewer customers per machine which can be a huge bonus since the inevitable will always happen eventually. Honestly, the cost of a server and colocation isn't that much considering some of the benefits you might realize. And you wouldn't need top of the line boxes either since their loads would be negligible.

Can you think of other benefits to this approach? This definitely has merit.

I Agree.

I mean if your not hosting for free its not resonable to put 600 sites on one server.

Our highest amount is 270 which we use for our lowend plan. 50 -100 MB, 1-2 GIG data
people who go with these plans usually dont use server side programs or databases either however we do proviode them.

I guess it would depend on what features you would be offering as well. Most hosts these days shy away from server intensive perl scripts such as UBB and YaBB. If you were allowing these type of of scripts to be run on your servers you might be able to catch a bit of a niche market that many have abandoned now, and might even be able to increase some prices as well to recover the cost of the reduced number of accounts per server, as most hosts just don't allow them anymore. Hell I've seen some hosts that still charge extra for cronjobs to be run, so you might have a slight added advantage by saying that you will allow these services, but then again you will still have to put some limitations, as many can be quite CPU intensive.

Judging by the largely positive response, I may very well introduce this in the near future, and I will try my best not to increase prices -- watch out for an announcement regarding this soon. Keep 'em coming. ;)

I also like the idea regarding allowing UBB, YaBB, Ikonboard, and some other more resource intensive scripts like these on the servers. They shouldn't cause any problems if you're only putting 100 sites or less per server, especially considering that there will most likely be no more than 5 or so of them per server at the end of the day.

Servers would be at least 1Ghz+ P3 at any rate. As has already been said, if one server fails, this would only affect a tiny number of customers and it would be easier to restore their data. So for instance if I spread out 1000 customers over 10 servers instead of 2 servers, only 10% of customers would experience short downtime, compared to 50%.

And if word gets around that I don't overload servers like many other hosts, it might also increase word of mouth referrals and mean big savings on advertising -- meaning that the total cost might not go up by as much as one might think. Now I just hope nobody else here copies this idea. :D

Originally posted by avara


Technically, today's hardware would be able to support 600 sites easily. Heck even 1500 sites like that shouldn't cause too much of a problem. That said, the fewer sites you host on each server, the less likely that an abuser is going to bring down thousands of your clients all at once. Plus he'll be easier to track down.

So I think that in the real world that we live in, there are actually advantages to hosting less clients per server -- it isn't just a gimmick to advertise.

Wait a sec:
If you can host 600-1500 sites today on this kind of hardware, then why would it make a difference if you hosted 100 sites or 600? If it can handle it (assuming handling it means without any slow down) then why lower the number to 100? You wouldn't see that much of a performance increase would you?

Brian

To summarize the reasons for doing this:
[list=1]
Fewer customer experiencing downtime when a server crashes.
Customers can run more process intensive applications (such as ikonboard).
Easier to track down who (if anyone) is causing trouble.
Can use smaller (cheaper) machines without much concern.
Good public perception.
[/list=1]

I'm sure there are more reasons than this.

What is the cost of technical staff to look over 10 machines compare to 2 machines ? what if you have to upgrade software upgrade like php , gd , control panel into all machine when the security concern comes to mind .I suppose you have to to it every few months .

Don't miss the point. The word of mouth that you're putting 100 site per machine does not spread, it just hoax to newcomers . The real word of mouth comes from existing customers. The more clever/helpful your technical staff, the more customers will comes and also attrack their friends/colleagues to you.

I would turn away the host that did not reply email nor upgrade software for months after request. Not many people know how to check your CPU or number of sites. And if you have a bit permission set. nobody can dig any information about your machine.

The real benefit of less site is the easier trackdown of problem . But if you have the strong software settting , you don't have to worry that much. Most server problem occurs from loose settings. And you should not have to wory much about downtime if you have a real backup. A machine of equal spec would be enough to hanle all backup and handle load when your main running bogged down.