Just saw this article thought I would share it with everyone-
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jul07/07-23HostingCon07PR.mspx

What do you say?

Very interesting, seems weird this is the only discussion about it unless there is a thread somewhere I am missing?

Cpanel for windows, now that is an interesting development.

Cpanel for windows, now that is an interesting development.

You're a few years too late :p
At any rate, is this supposed to be breaking news? ;)

Maybe with this news, the development will double it's speed :)

Just saw this article thought I would share it with everyone-
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jul07/07-23HostingCon07PR.mspx

What do you say?

This has been on the cPanel forums for the past week and there is much more information about the features and model cPanel will use for windows.

I'd really like to see how the layout will work for the Windows based cPanel, especially with features such as virtual directories and the existance of "addon domains".

cPanel was up for windows from quite some time, maybe now things would speedup

Greetings:

H-Sphere has been there, done that, and did not need yet another T shirt ;-)

Thank you.

Greetings:

H-Sphere has been there, done that, and did not need yet another T shirt ;-)

Thank you.
This discussion is not about hsphere.

Greetings:

H-Sphere has been there, done that, and did not need yet another T shirt ;-)

Thank you.

H-Sphere also has a piss-poor architecture that actually introduces multiple points of failure, (http://www.psoft.net/promo/hs_cluster_charts.html) but like the man said, this thread is not about Hsphere. :)



Regards,

H-Sphere also has a piss-poor architecture that actually introduces multiple points of failure, (http://www.psoft.net/promo/hs_cluster_charts.html) but like the man said, this thread is not about Hsphere. :)


Yes, but when something does fail, it doesn't take all services with it, which actually makes it more reliable long term in the eyes of customers.

As for CPanel on Windows, was about 4 years ago when it first appeared on the CPanel home page wasn't it?

Yes, but when something does fail, it doesn't take all services with it, which actually makes it more reliable long term in the eyes of customers.



What kind of customers do you have? Man, I want some of those! (not) :)

If the mail server dies, mail is out for many accounts. If the web server dies, no websites/applications for many accounts. I would rather have 100 cpanel servers with /etc /home and /var hooked up to an iSCSI SAN (*wink*) with Hercules (*wink*wink*) then put my clients at risk with HSphere. HSphere is a marketing device - multi-os, all-in-one with billing. It's technology is mediocre at best, though this is only my opinion.



Regards,

At risk of jinxing ourselves now, the last time we had a server down in our HSphere setup was 3 years ago, if you exclude reboots for Kernels. HSphere can do load balanced servers as well and as for it being a gimmick, someone should tell CPanel, they are very much moving in the same direction, what with their inbuilt ticketing system now and DNS only servers.

Before anyone jumps in accusing me of being a HSphere fan-boy, we use CPanel as well, I know which I prefer for our virtual hosting and which our customers prefer. With a split server setup, we can offer faster performance from our virtual hosting then a lot of people have with their cheap dedicateds. We're getting O/T here though.

At risk of jinxing ourselves now, the last time we had a server down in our HSphere setup was 3 years ago, if you exclude reboots for Kernels. HSphere can do load balanced servers as well and as for it being a gimmick, someone should tell CPanel, they are very much moving in the same direction, what with their inbuilt ticketing system now and DNS only servers.

Before anyone jumps in accusing me of being a HSphere fan-boy, we use CPanel as well, I know which I prefer for our virtual hosting and which our customers prefer. With a split server setup, we can offer faster performance from our virtual hosting then a lot of people have with their cheap dedicateds. We're getting O/T here though.


agreed on the OT comment. Time for more caffeine.. :)

I agree, hardly breaking news. Also, it doesn't really represent the relationship well. MS is just trying to break into the hosting market in a different way due to a lot of problems it has compared to other operating systems for web hosting.

It's nothing more than them trying to find the popular control panel company's and trying to get *nix web hosting based company's that use Cpanel to consider Windows hosting (because, hey, now they can still use Cpanel (as if that's a great sales pitch!).

They saw Cpanel has a product being developed, and MS, being who they are and how they think, thought "Sure it's broken and doesn't work great, but that's who we are! Besides, looks good enough to me." and Cpanel thought "This is about as good as we can do, it'll break on both operating systems anyway and people seem to tolerate it fine on Linux and FreeBSD.", so they both used each other's names, and it really means nothing.

Ironic how M$ and cPanel seem to have about the same approach to software development (appearing piecemeal and often breaking things) and customer service (zip)... at least to the outsiders' eye... and I can't help but suspect that cPanel is simply leaping toward whomever waves the fattest check at them.

Personally, I would prefer that cPanel stick to one thing and do it well (that being Linux). There's quite enough to juggle there without taking on yet more stuff. cPanel has already proven to we users, via abandoned features, that they already have far more on their plates than they can maintain.

Just my 2¢ worth. (And 2¢ will not take you very far in today's economy) :)

:D Bailey

You preach it! That's exactly it. Although, I actually don't get the impression that MS paid them anything. But I could be wrong. If so, even for MS, what were MS thinking? I can only assume they just said it'll work because Cpanel is making something that they say will. I think that's the extent of the "collaboration".

I can't wait to see this, let's cross our fingers... Windows already has enough bugs as it is. (linux fan!)

Indeed, there's nothing like losing sleep worrying about what will happen next. It'll keep you on you toes for sure. I suppose it would make someone's life more exciting if they were very bored and wanted to do Windows web hosting and add a bit of an edge to it. Seriously though, who would ever consider doing this? I too, an am Linux and FreeBSD fan (not of Cpanel on it though), but I can see people wanting to do Windows hosting for whatever reason (I never would, but some people do, obviously). So, I'm genuinely curious if there are people out there that would really put Cpanel on Windows and are excited about this prospect? Actually, I probably don't want to know. The whole situation sounds way too frustrating to think about.

Indeed, there's nothing like losing sleep worrying about what will happen next. It'll keep you on you toes for sure. I suppose it would make someone's life more exciting if they were very bored and wanted to do Windows web hosting and add a bit of an edge to it. Seriously though, who would ever consider doing this? I too, an am Linux and FreeBSD fan (not of Cpanel on it though), but I can see people wanting to do Windows hosting for whatever reason (I never would, but some people do, obviously). So, I'm genuinely curious if there are people out there that would really put Cpanel on Windows and are excited about this prospect? Actually, I probably don't want to know. The whole situation sounds way too frustrating to think about.

I am excited. The cPanel team has alluded to the fact that:

-There will be an open API and
-There will be integration with the *nix cPanel


cPanel is nice - no complaints here. We are running cPanel 11 and everyone loves it. From a technology perspective, it does take over your system. From a business perspective, it is the most widely used control panel by far and has has the tires kicked for coming up on a decade.

I agree with you on your analysis of cPanel 11, Karl. As a sysadmin, a host, and as a user (I run 30-odd of my own sites, LOL) I just love cPanel 11. And when I have shown my clients how to do things in their cPanels, they've picked it up really quickly... they've been surprised how easy it is to use. cPanel 11 is definitely a hit. And even from a sysadmin perspective, I don't mind it so much, it's just a matter of understanding how it works. Once a person "connects the dots" under the hood, then you know where to go to work on stuff.

:D Bailey

I'm glad if people like it and don't have problems, I truly am. I am not being sarcastic or condescending when I say it. However, since it's inception, Cpanel has been a pile of junk. Poorly strung together code from a kid that didn't have a good grasp.

Granted, it's maturing and getting slightly better as time goes by and as they hire people that do know what they are doing, but it has tons of problems and I don't actually take issue with it "taking over the system", because it really doesn't (it wouldn't be difficult to remove it all and use your own system or another control panel).

Of course it provides ease for some tasks and for some people that aren't aware how easy it is to do things on your own, especially if you can program well yourself. Since I don't have a competing control panel to offer as an alternative at this time, I won't go on about it. I'm also not saying it's worthless, but I do think people have come to tolerate too much by saying things like "nothing's perfect", "nothing's 100% secure" and "everything has bugs", when the amount of those actual problems throughout the history of Cpanel says this problem exists in a pretty significant degree.

So, that's how I see it, and it seems crazy that people are accepting of it (I'm not just saying this because I like to trash products or software), but if people aren't seeing the problems or aren't aware of them and things are running fine and you don't experience security issues because of it (not because of lacking admin skills), then I'm honestly happy to hear it. After all, I'd like to see a control panel (I don't care what one, even if it were Cpanel) work properly where I could feel confident and secure using it, so I could rest more easy running a web host (I don't want or like that stress factor).

Anyway, my point remains, Cpanel on Windows will just make Windows even worse. I didn't say what I did to try and convince someone to not like a product they like, just commenting from what I know and have seen. And, please, no blaming the user or admin to try and excuse the real problems the product has (not that anyone will, but many people do).

Granted, it's maturing and getting slightly better as time goes by and as they hire people that do know what they are doing, but it has tons of problems and I don't actually take issue with it "taking over the system", because it really doesn't (it wouldn't be difficult to remove it all and use your own system or another control panel).

Of course it provides ease for some tasks and for some people that aren't aware how easy it is to do things on your own, especially if you can program well yourself. Since I don't have a competing control panel to offer as an alternative at this time, I won't go on about it. I'm also not saying it's worthless, but I do think people have come to tolerate too much by saying things like "nothing's perfect", "nothing's 100% secure" and "everything has bugs", when the amount of those actual problems throughout the history of Cpanel says this problem exists in a pretty significant degree.

So, that's how I see it, and it seems crazy that people are accepting of it (I'm not just saying this because I like to trash products or software), but if people aren't seeing the problems or aren't aware of them and things are running fine and you don't experience security issues because of it (not because of lacking admin skills), then I'm honestly happy to hear it. After all, I'd like to see a control panel (I don't care what one, even if it were Cpanel) work properly where I could feel confident and secure using it, so I could rest more easy running a web host (I don't want or like that stress factor).

Anyway, my point remains, Cpanel on Windows will just make Windows even worse. I didn't say what I did to try and convince someone to not like a product they like, just commenting from what I know and have seen. And, please, no blaming the user or admin to try and excuse the real problems the product has (not that anyone will, but many people do).


I think cPanel on Windows will not be that bad and you said it yourself they now have developers who know what they're doing. Windows on cPanel may very well be nicely done if it doesn't have the issues of the current cPanel of legacy code that is 10 years old.

Ironic how M$ and cPanel seem to have about the same approach to software development (appearing piecemeal and often breaking things) and customer service (zip)...

I'm not one to often defend CPanel, but I can't leave that one be, CPanel has some of the best support out there, of all the products we use and have had to get support for CPanel over the past couple of years have been in a league of their own - Prompt responses, prompt fixes, they actually read what you've told them, you don't have to repeat yourself 5 times in slightly different ways to make them understand. I've only used MS support a couple of times, but on both occasions they were also very prompt at providing the needed fix.

I think cPanel on Windows will not be that bad and you said it yourself they now have developers who know what they're doing. Windows on cPanel may very well be nicely done if it doesn't have the issues of the current cPanel of legacy code that is 10 years old.


Well, I didn't exactly say that, how you present it in your reply, to be accurate and fair. I don't think that much has changed, but it's obviously improved over the last 7 or more years. I didn't say the programmers are great or know what they are doing, but people that know more than the original creator (but how much control and design and coding do those people do anyway?) It is slightly better sometimes, but like the stock market, the dynamics change (new features, changes, etc.) and it can go back down to not being any better again. Then up, then down, in quality. You are welcome to assume it'll be quality software on Windows if you like, or assume Cpanel doesn't really even have problems, or the problems that it does have are insignificant or whatever, but that's just your view.

It still has plenty of issues, but like I said, I'm not here to debate about how someone else feels and I'm not telling anyone else how to feel, nor am I trying to convince anyone else how to feel. I'm just stating the facts as I know them. I'm not trying to argue or debate it or say someone's right or wrong, okay? I do admit though, that I very much wish I had Cpanel's client base, because it would be very easy to satisfy them without having to try hard. I'm not saying that at a shot to any clients, but Cpanel clients obviously are willing to tolerate a lot and it's not usually because they are more patient or understanding, it's just because they (in general) put up with more problems or think less of the problems.

Like I also said, it's not because it's worthless software and there are web hosts making a lot of money off of the back of Cpanel so they wouldn't want to complain, Instead they say "Well, we're making a lot with this software doing web hosting, so we're willing to put up with the problems". But, like I said, if you don't experience the problems that many other people have and still do, then no wonder you're happy with the product, and that's great! Anyway, no point in arguing or debating about how each other feels about a product, that would be silly. Again, no sarcasm intended whatsoever, I'm glad you are happy with the product. I am not.

I think cPanel on Windows will not be that bad and you said it yourself they now have developers who know what they're doing. Windows on cPanel may very well be nicely done if it doesn't have the issues of the current cPanel of legacy code that is 10 years old.


cPanel for windows is an entirely new codebase - written from scratch. It will also only work with windows server 2008 and above. The way I am looking at it, the same team that worked on cPanel *nix knows that there is work being done on cPanel Windows. The *nix developers know what security holes, features, functions and operations are needed, and have refined them over the past years. When we shell out for the cPanel window's licenses, we are not paying for a windows control panel, we are paying for the experience and knowledge the cPanel team gained while they worked on the other codebase for the past decade, and the information they gained with the 10s of thousands of servers out there being slammed by users and hackers on a daily basis.

I feel this topic is getting more attention than it deserves and more than I'm comfortable with, so I'm not going to contribute any further replies. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm okay with people liking Cpanel and having faith in it and good experiences.

So, I hope people are not offended by my perspective, as it's valid and relevant. Then again, I couldn't imagine why anyone would find a problem with someone expressing their own opinion and experience (that would be weird, after all). So, I'll conclude with that and assume there's no problem/issue.

PS: I did already imagine that it would be different code writers for the Windows version (Oh God. I hope so anyway!)

I feel this topic is getting more attention than it deserves and more than I'm comfortable with, so I'm not going to contribute any further replies. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm okay with people liking Cpanel and having faith in it and good experiences.

So, I hope people are not offended by my perspective, as it's valid and relevant. Then again, I couldn't imagine why anyone would find a problem with someone expressing their own opinion and experience (that would be weird, after all). So, I'll conclude with that and assume there's no problem/issue.

PS: I did already imagine that it would be different code writers for the Windows version (Oh God. I hope so anyway!)

Rob,

I am not offended in the slightest. After all, if all the hosts of the world offered the exact same software and services, and did things the same way, we would only need one company in the market... :)


Kind Regards,

They had that on cPanel.Net like years ago that they are developing cPanel for Windows. This is the first time there is an update in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by utropic
Subscribed.

Some questions:

-Exchange support? This would be killer as we would migrate off DNP.
-Office communication server support?
-Sharepoint support?
-MSSQL?
-Any ideas on the licensing cost for just cPanel - as we are already an SPLA partner...
-What APIs will you make available? Will you encourage 3rd-party development?



Kind Regards,

Traditionally, I'd ask you to email me at *****cpanel.net; however given the frequency at which your questions are asked, it is worth posting a response to the forums.

While cPanel for Windows is still being developed, it would be hard to give definite answers to these questions. However, I will say we will have MS SQL support. Additionally since cPanel for Windows will have full clustering support (unlike cPanel/WHM), we're currently working out the details regarding how the product will be licensed. It will likely not be licensed in the same way as cPanel/WHM.

I know the cPanel for Windows team has considered Exchange support; however, that will not make the 1.0 release. A future version of Exchange may be supported, and we definitely hear the demand for Exchange support.

As for the remainder of your questions, I do not have those answers at this time. I'm sure as the product prepares for beta late this year that I'll have answers for you at that time. However, I will say that third party development is a concern for the cPanel for Windows team.

It is important to note that this isn't cPanel forced onto a Windows platform. It has been built with an independent code base with Microsoft technologies. While the products will look and feel the same, under the hood they are completely different.

Good, Now it will be interesting to watch the swing of Hosting market.

Just saw this article thought I would share it with everyone-After a good bit of reading, my head is spinning from all the marketing talk in there. I dub this "marketing spin syndrome". :P

Although, I actually don't get the impression that MS paid them anything.Even if all that the collaboration means is a special line of communication/support, it's more than the average developer could ever hope for if he were to decide to develop a control panel. :)

If the mail server dies, mail is out for many accounts. If the web server dies, no websites/applications for many accounts. I would rather have 100 cpanel servers with /etc /home and /var hooked up to an iSCSI SAN (*wink*) with Hercules (*wink*wink*) then put my clients at risk with HSphere. HSphere is a marketing device - multi-os, all-in-one with billing. It's technology is mediocre at best, though this is only my opinion.

Karl, I have alot of respect for you - but, these comments are way off base - and I mean WAY off.

First off, you can load balance web, mail and if using mysql 5.x or higher, you can easily fail over mysql - and this is right out of the box...

http://www.psoft.net/HSdocumentation/sysadmin/understanding_load_balancing.html

Second, leaving all of that behind - running 10 cpanel servers over a cluster of 10 servers with specialized roles does not create additional single points of failure - do a proper High Availability analysis - servers performing specialized roles will themselves have alot less points of failure then servers with multiple roles - this is one of the fundamental reasons organizations cluster - and specialized roles are one of the key benefits in shared hosting and key factors in achieving and maitaining superior uptime over a prolonged period of time - I would put our clusters uptime over the past 7 years up against any cpanel provider and I know darned well we would beat it - I could go on and on - but, this isnt the place for it - irregardless - I urge you to research what you are saying more thoroughly because throwing out blanket statements like hsphere creates single points of failure is not accurate...

As for windows on cpanel - it would have to be rebuilt - and I would be curious to see if there was any linkage (ie would it still be single server or would they move towards clustering - and by the way - speaking with the cpanel team at hostingcon - I would say their goal is pretty clearly to move towards an hsphere model with multiple platform and especially clustering capabilities...

Just wait for it, sure will provide more usefull features :)

smart move by ms... def should increase the usage of ms based servers

Karl, I have alot of respect for you - but, these comments are way off base - and I mean WAY off.

First off, you can load balance web, mail and if using mysql 5.x or higher, you can easily fail over mysql - and this is right out of the box...

http://www.psoft.net/HSdocumentation/sysadmin/understanding_load_balancing.html

Second, leaving all of that behind - running 10 cpanel servers over a cluster of 10 servers with specialized roles does not create additional single points of failure - do a proper High Availability analysis - servers performing specialized roles will themselves have alot less points of failure then servers with multiple roles - this is one of the fundamental reasons organizations cluster - and specialized roles are one of the key benefits in shared hosting and key factors in achieving and maintaining superior uptime over a prolonged period of time - I would put our clusters uptime over the past 7 years up against any cpanel provider and I know darned well we would beat it - I could go on and on - but, this inst the place for it - irregardless - I urge you to research what you are saying more thoroughly because throwing out blanket statements like hsphere creates single points of failure is not accurate...



Andrew,

Thank you for the kind words. I have much respect for you and your operation as well. However, after doing further research into how HSphere is setup, I came to the conclusion that the default installs they have listed on their site are dangerous and do not provide any more protection or reliability - they just compartmentalize resources better. Even the link you provided - load balancing with HSphere - has zero to do with Hsphere and requires the use of a 3rd-technology, namely a 3rd-party NAS or SAN for shared storage. While this is common, I think the approach that HSpehre takes with its marketing that implies '..clustering always makes things better regardless of the details of the cluster...' is careless. In fact, I put it out there that having many cPanel servers provides more of a p2p-grid-like architecture then any clustering setup similar to the HSphere diagrams on the psoft site. Each cPanel box can perform ALL functions necessary; it doesn't have to do everything, but the fact that it has all the services available means it is exactly like a grid compute node.(I did my thesis on efficient distributed algorithm design.) Again, the point here is that it really is up to the provider to architect a reliable solution: HSphere does not provide one.

I maintain that every diagram here http://www.psoft.net/promo/hs_cluster_charts.html has single points of failure. Every one.

Just because you have 3 mail servers doesn't mean they all service the same accounts. If you lose one, all the accounts/domains it services go with it. According to all the documentation on the HSphere site it does not provide mirrored clusters - it is merely a co-located clustering design: one role per-server.(Though I understand that a server can have multiple roles - my point remains HSphere does not have shared storage so each role is servicing independent user data.) Can you verify this?

As for cPanel clustering, there is a thread on the cPanel forums that is older then dirt about clustering with cPanel. Many of us have it working, though we felt no need to market it as a "grid" or similar like some of the other hosts(obviously not you guys!! :)) out there...And it's not just shared-storage - it's true load-balancing with layer-3 and layer-4 balancing across multuple front-end servers: all the front-end servers just happen to run cPanel.



Kind Regards,

Hey Karl,

That exact argument used to be made every day on these forums several years back - I honestly do not believe it is valid.

As for load balancing - well, of course you need a central storage device - that really isnt the point - it is still a function of hsphere that allows you to seamlessly mount partitions across arrays of any filesystem (ie GFS, NFS, etc, etc, etc) - the use of 3rd party hardware to get a control panel to work is not unique - as most of them run on servers :)

(Though I understand that a server can have multiple roles - my point remains HSphere does not have shared storage so each role is servicing independent user data.) Can you verify this?

Yes, does allowed for shared storage using ANY storage device (even a server with some drives)

Even if you stick with the default cluster - I honestly must tell you that your presumptions are incorrect. If you do not like that setup - then no one is blaming you for not using - however, it is not appropriate to claim it create more single points of failure then single server installs..

Anyway, no harm done - your exact argument used to be made all the time on these forums - I honestly thought that battle was done as most people have conceded the point that clustering offers pretty much every possible advantage over single server installs.

I am just glad cpanel went back to the drawing board after last years hostingcon where the product they had for windows was not even close to realistic for a windows environment.
Last hostingcon they had the windows developers there and we talked quite a bit, the features they supported just weren't suitable for a windows setup, it was more like WIISMP(to use a LAMP type lingo there)

Hey Karl,


As for load balancing - well, of course you need a central storage device - that really isnt the point - it is still a function of hsphere that allows you to seamlessly mount partitions across arrays of any filesystem (ie GFS, NFS, etc, etc, etc) - the use of 3rd party hardware to get a control panel to work is not unique - as most of them run on servers :)

A bit off topic though - every host uses servers, that's a lowest-common-denominator. People that often use HSphere seem to make a point on how their "clustering" offers a superior platform. My contention is that clustering, in and of itself, can introduce more single points-of-failure. From your comment, the only way HSphere provides for increased reliability is though the use of NFS, iSCSI, etc - which is an architecture control that is tied to an OS - not HSphere. Saying HSphere allows you to "seamlessly mount partitions across arrays of filesystems" implies that it doesn't need NFS, iSCSI or even the *nix 'mount' command to do that. My contention is that HSphere does no work - provides no additional usability - to make an architecture more reliable. HSphere uses underlying technologies - even relying on 3rd party technologies to accomplish this. The same thing can, and has, been done with cPanel and can be done with anything.



Yes, does allowed for shared storage using ANY storage device (even a server with some drives)Any modern OS allows for shared storage - install CIFS, NFS, etc. Again, my point is that this is not a function of HSphere. HSphere does not have its own networking protocol that uses kernel modules to talk to remote storage devices does it? :) This is my point. :cool:



Anyway, no harm done - your exact argument used to be made all the time on these forums - I honestly thought that battle was done as most people have conceded the point that clustering offers pretty much every possible advantage over single server installs.Here's a scenario for you: 4 - servers in your HSphere cluster: one mail, one web, one sql, one dns; this is your cluster.

Your 'mail' server in your cluster dies - bad hardware, Raid backplane fries. How do clients get email? They don't. This cluster has just failed any reliability metric. Using my scenario and architecture taken straight from the HSphere multi-server instalations (http://www.psoft.net/promo/hs_cluster_charts.html), your users are now unable to use their email. Extending the sceneraio, let's say you have 2 email servers(total of 5 in your cluster) to host your 300 client domains. HSphere was a good-boy and put 150 domains on the first mail server and the other 150 on the other. Let's say one mail server dies. Can all 300 clients still get their email? No. Correct? HSphere does not mirror the data. You now have a cluster that has 4/5 servers running, but 150 clients cannot get their email. To my team and I, that is unacceptable.





Clustering is not inherently better - is all boils down to the implementation. On the HSphere site with those diagrams, every box that is a solid color (i.e. is only one role) is a single point-of-failure for a client. Instead of having everything on one physical server, where one set of hardware can fail, you now, for example, have 4 of everything - increasing your hardware failure footprint(potential) by 400%. (Yes, there are other things to consider, but for this example I am just using hardware as one fault vector.)

If you couldn't tell, I enjoy this stuff. :)


Kind Regards,

If one mail server dies, 150 users can't get their mail, but their databases and websites still work - which is better than a single install server failing and those 150 users not getting their mail and their website and databases being down.

If one mail server dies, 150 users can't get their mail, but their databases and websites still work - which is better than a single install server failing and those 150 users not getting their mail and their website and databases being down.

But not better then implementing a proper, reliable architecture where all 300 users can get everything. This is my point: that through all the marketing and pretty pictures the implementation gets lost. Users think they are getting better reliability when in fact they may be getting worse. HSphere, cPanel, etc. are just a small part of the equation - meant to help makes things easier, but should not be trusted to do soup-to-nuts.

90%+ of our clients are businesses which we offer a 100% uptime SLA to: if we were to give them the "some is better than nothing" argument our next meeting would be with their legal counsel. As a client/end-user, I guess it all depends how serious you take your business/project.

I guess it all depends how serious you take your business/project.

No, at the end of the day, it all comes down to how seriously your clients take their business and how much they are willing to pay. You can build it however you like, but if your clients aren't willing to pay for it, then you're on a sure fire ticket to bankruptcy.

I find it rather arrogant, that just because someone doesn't agree with you, then you insinuate that they don't take their business seriously.

No, at the end of the day, it all comes down to how seriously your clients take their business and how much they are willing to pay. You can build it however you like, but if your clients aren't willing to pay for it, then you're on a sure fire ticket to bankruptcy.

I find it rather arrogant, that just because someone doesn't agree with you, then you insinuate that they don't take their business seriously.

I am fully aware that it depends on your market. The "you" I was referring to is not "you the reader", but was in fact the client receiving services. I took care to state:

As a client/end-user, I guess it all depends how serious you take your business/project.

Please take care to read the post next time, perhaps twice, before calling someone arrogant.



Regards,

* Moved to Hosting Software and Control Panels....

Sirius

A bit off topic though - every host uses servers, that's a lowest-common-denominator. People that often use HSphere seem to make a point on how their "clustering" offers a superior platform. My contention is that clustering, in and of itself, can introduce more single points-of-failure. From your comment, the only way HSphere provides for increased reliability is though the use of NFS, iSCSI, etc - which is an architecture control that is tied to an OS - not HSphere. Saying HSphere allows you to "seamlessly mount partitions across arrays of filesystems" implies that it doesn't need NFS, iSCSI or even the *nix 'mount' command to do that. My contention is that HSphere does no work - provides no additional usability - to make an architecture more reliable. HSphere uses underlying technologies - even relying on 3rd party technologies to accomplish this. The same thing can, and has, been done with cPanel and can be done with anything.



Any modern OS allows for shared storage - install CIFS, NFS, etc. Again, my point is that this is not a function of HSphere. HSphere does not have its own networking protocol that uses kernel modules to talk to remote storage devices does it? :) This is my point. :cool:



Here's a scenario for you: 4 - servers in your HSphere cluster: one mail, one web, one sql, one dns; this is your cluster.

Your 'mail' server in your cluster dies - bad hardware, Raid backplane fries. How do clients get email? They don't. This cluster has just failed any reliability metric. Using my scenario and architecture taken straight from the HSphere multi-server instalations (http://www.psoft.net/promo/hs_cluster_charts.html), your users are now unable to use their email. Extending the sceneraio, let's say you have 2 email servers(total of 5 in your cluster) to host your 300 client domains. HSphere was a good-boy and put 150 domains on the first mail server and the other 150 on the other. Let's say one mail server dies. Can all 300 clients still get their email? No. Correct? HSphere does not mirror the data. You now have a cluster that has 4/5 servers running, but 150 clients cannot get their email. To my team and I, that is unacceptable.





Clustering is not inherently better - is all boils down to the implementation. On the HSphere site with those diagrams, every box that is a solid color (i.e. is only one role) is a single point-of-failure for a client. Instead of having everything on one physical server, where one set of hardware can fail, you now, for example, have 4 of everything - increasing your hardware failure footprint(potential) by 400%. (Yes, there are other things to consider, but for this example I am just using hardware as one fault vector.)

If you couldn't tell, I enjoy this stuff. :)


Kind Regards,

Sorry Karl,

I just dont buy any of this logic - but, not worth debating it further - having said this - you simply cannot state clustering introduces multiple single points of failure...

I will let this one sit and hopefully you will be more careful with how you word this in the future...

As for cpanel - I am completely with steven - it is nice to see the are starting from scratch on this one.

Ah bugger, that's what I get for posting on two forums at the same time having been at work for over 12 hours. :foot+mouth:

Ah bugger, that's what I get for posting on two forums at the same time having been at work for over 12 hours. :foot+mouth:

No worries mate. :) I enjoy the discussion as it helps me get other perspectives on things.



Kind Regards,

But not better then implementing a proper, reliable architecture where all 300 users can get everything. This is my point: that through all the marketing and pretty pictures the implementation gets lost. Users think they are getting better reliability when in fact they may be getting worse. HSphere, cPanel, etc. are just a small part of the equation - meant to help makes things easier, but should not be trusted to do soup-to-nuts.

90%+ of our clients are businesses which we offer a 100% uptime SLA to: if we were to give them the "some is better than nothing" argument our next meeting would be with their legal counsel. As a client/end-user, I guess it all depends how serious you take your business/project.

Worst case, a default setup of cPanel and H-Sphere will offer equal reliability. I do not see how you can say it would be worse. if you're using 4 servers for each and one goes down, either way you're losing 25% of your customers or services.

The advantage with H-Sphere is being able to split up these customers and services. With each server serving a different function you're less likely to have failures as there are less potential points of failure on each system. On the mail server you don't need to worry about Apache locking up and making the whole box inoperable, on the web server you don't need to worry about SpamAssassin using all your memory, while on each and every cPanel server you'll need to worry about each and every one of those things. The specific functions also allow you to setup each server specifically for it's intended use. You can use processors that work better for MySQL on the MySQL box along with 15k RPM SCSI drives while you can get away with cheaper hardware on the web or mail nodes. This ability to allow you to better utilize your resources is also key, and can lead to greater reliability, as you'll have the right hardware for each service.

Also, I have not setup load balanced clusters in cPanel, but H-Sphere has directions for it and works well in such configurations with no "hacks" needed. Once the hardware and OS is set it is all supported right in the control panel, I have seen no such option in cPanel.

Point well made, HSphere supports Load Balancing, earlier in tge year we had an issue with CPanel in a load balanced setup and the reply was, "Sorry, not supported", they did try and help, but once it became apparent it wasn't a simple issue they didn't proceed with it any more.

Just a copy and paste from another thread but it also outlays the general advantage of clustering and it's inherent benefits even without mirroring.

As a clustered Host, I see the benefits of clustering is the multiple levels of redundancy, not multiple points of failure. Single server technology is normally used for small business whereas corporate enterprise environments use clustering. For a small website, speed and reliability are not a big concern so single server hosting may be best and most economical.

But for vital, enterprise class hosting, clustering has proven to be superior to single server hosting.

Performance is a non-issue. It should be quite obvious that 6 servers doing the same # of tasks is faster than 1 server doing those tasks.

Many people claim that clustering introduces multiple points of failure. We like to think of it as multiple points of recovery and redundancy. Glass Half Full or Glass Half Empty depending on how you look at it.

SCENARIO A - 1 server hosting - "All your eggs in 1 basket"
Single server host server crashes. Nothing will work for you, no mail, no web, no DNS, no mySQL, no Control Panel, no backing up of anything, mySQL, mail or Web files. So you're stuck at that host until they get their services going. So you've lost everything because of 1 server.

SCENARIO B - Clustered Hosting - "Can't bring me down!"
1) Typical H-Sphere Clusters come with 6 servers (2 DNS, 1 mySQL, 1 Apache, 1 Control Panel) If 1 server goes down, you still have the others working:
a. If I lose my mail server, my web and mySQL are still running so I'm sitll in business
b. If I lose my webserver, my mail is still working so I can notify my customers that we're having difficulties. I can use the DNS to reroute to another Server, I can use my Control Panel to cancel my hosting. I can still backup my mySQL and if I'm provided with another webserver, I can restore my files and be back up again quick.
c. mySQL server goes down, my website keeps running and I can put up a temporary page. I can still notify my customers with my still fully working email.

So as you can see, there is quite a bit of redundancy built inherently into clustering even without mirroring the servers. It allows your hosting to still work even when one component fails. Then if you add mirroring of servers on top of this which some H-Sphere companies do, the system reliability is quite high.

In summary: 1 server hosting, if your server is gone, you lose your entire web presence. With Cluster hosting, 1 server going down doesn't mean your whole web enterprise is down.

This is why all large corporations never use only 1 server for mail, website, mail, DNS, it doesn't make sense to trust your web presence to 1 machine and oftentimes, that 1 machine gets overloaded with so many processes it underperforms.

Clustering is not for everybody and certainly it's almost always more expensive. It is new technology in the hosting world but has been successfully used in the corporate world for years and any corporate system administrator would tell you they would never put Mail and Web services on the same server.