I have noticed that some hosting startups want to use a basic web server and their ADSL connections to get their hosting biz off the ground.

There are may reasons why this is a bad idea, as already mentioned, however here is a compelling reason why your customers will never get good connection speeds from your setup.

As we are developing some applications around networking products, particulary Packeteer PacketShapers, I have had a shaper connected to our LAN over the last few hours and all outbound traffic to the Internet has been flowing through the Shaper via a 500K ADSL connection (BT OpenWorld). As I have been the only person using the Internet connection, the traffic has just come from my usage of the net over that time.

The attached graph shows the network efficiency of the DSL link, and it is frightening how badly these links perform, as you can see. Having even a small number of concurrent users using this link would cause major contention and TCP re-transmission issues - resulting in your startup remaining just that!

I think you forgot to "attach" the attached graph ;).

Frank

The file upload didn't work as the graph was too big (111Kb), so that has reduced the impact of my argument!

Basically the connection is running at about 75% efficiency, dipping to about 50% during big upload/downloads.

If anyone can think of a way of getting round the file upload restrictions here, let me know, and I'll post the graph (and others, if anyone is that interested!).

hosting on DSL lol

there is no problem with hosting a small personal site on dsl. hosting others on it is foolish

What 'hosting startups' are these that are doing this? Would be interesting to know.

Heres's one example:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74503

I checked again, still can't get the graph into the bulletin board - its the VB restrictions, not the DSL line!

Originally posted by operandi
The file upload didn't work as the graph was too big (111Kb), so that has reduced the impact of my argument!

Basically the connection is running at about 75% efficiency, dipping to about 50% during big upload/downloads.

If anyone can think of a way of getting round the file upload restrictions here, let me know, and I'll post the graph (and others, if anyone is that interested!).
I know a way! Upload it to your site and link to it. (or is that not allowed?)
We'll just take your word for it. Now, do you know of anyone trying to host sites "for pay" on their home PC using their DSL?
That would just be stupid.

Well it's just not a good idea because most DSL/Cable providers forbid you from setting up servers in thier TOS.

Frank

I know a way! Upload it to your site and link to it. (or is that not allowed?)

Good thinking:

www.medianetrix.com/util.bmp - no ads or other info is there

i know why its not a good idea..

stability
reliability
performace

3 key points all servers should strive to forfill, dsl will never manage that.

If you are even thinking of running on dsl, first off, dont even think about adsl, you need sdsl. That right off the bat is atleast 300 dollars a month. Then you need a backup system(no a 30 minute apc wont do it). Also remember that you are going to then a a tier 3 connection, so you will not be near the backbone. You will not have any good fire protection or any great protection of that type. Then lets say things are going decent and its time to upgrade the line. Not many dsl providers go above 1.5 mbits a second on sdsl. I have seen some that can go higher, but thats with a wacky configureation. Finally the dsl TOS. If someone spams through your server or spams and links back to your site. They wont be "understanding" thats its your fault. They will give you a warning or two, then, they will cut you. Want to wait another 30 days for another dsl company to install a line?

I have to say though sdsl has preformed decently in the past. This is NO way in saying its ok to use. But from viewing my own mrtg reports, a sdsl line can easily be saturated to its max consently for a large numbers of hours.

Also there are the startup costs. If you get the hardware, its what, about 800 dollars for the router alone

btw, when I say you, I mean someone whos thinking about doing it.

My cable modem with windows 2000 server is more reliable than a good proportion of the webhosts at WHT. And more it's free!

Originally posted by The Laughing Cow
My cable modem with windows 2000 server is more reliable than a good proportion of the webhosts at WHT. And more it's free!

:emlaugh:

i see these start up web hosts saying they are gonna start web hosting on a home cable modem - give me a break. an SDSL line would be good if you hosted 1 high traffic site

Originally posted by The Laughing Cow
My cable modem with windows 2000 server is more reliable than a good proportion of the webhosts at WHT. And more it's free!

free cable?! where do u live

No,

My point was....

I see these start up web hosts saying they are gonna start web hosting on <insert name of $99 dedicated company> or <insert name of cheap reseller> - give me a break. They either use crappy networks or don't know how to administer a server.

With my home server which hosts one website for me off a 512k Cable modem line I know that it is configured with security and performance in mind. I know that it is configured correctly too. I can install whatever componants I want too. Besides the site only gets a couple of hits a day yet I was making a point.

:cool:

Originally posted by ffeingol
Well it's just not a good idea because most DSL/Cable providers forbid you from setting up servers in thier TOS.

Frank

Well, if you compress the image as a GIF, it would be very small.

Use GIF if it's a line diagram or something with few colors and you don't want the lines to smudge even a little bit. Use JPG if it's a photo - too many colors / shades and where minute overlaps may not be noticeable.

Sorry if someone has already posted this and this is redundant. I haven't read until the end of the thread.

Wing.

I don't pay for the cable, I live with my parents. They fork out the £10/month for 512k cable :D

I'll agree that Adsl (which usually has uploads of 300K max on the average) is completely unsuitable for a paid-for service (Unless you have lots of customers whose sites never get hit.)

SDSL should be OK, seeing as 1.5 MBit (without bonding, up to 3MBit with) should handle close the loads the same as a t1 (1.54 I believe?) would.

As for a home cable modem....

Well, you are still limited to a 300K upload.

and the CHIEF problem being--- (Regardless of speeds)
Your service could be Shut Off at ANY time by your ISP if they detect you running a server. Or ports for email, ftp, web, etc could be blocked.

Even WORSE since you dont have a LEGAL RIGHT to "resell" the home connection, YOU are liable if the ISP wants to go after you, and YOUR CUSTOMERS arent legally obligated to pay you.

its not just having a fast connection at home....You also got to have a way to keep temperature and humidity down. Now that might not be as important because it will probably be rare that a room in your house is too hot, and too humid, but a bigger problem would be power outages and physical protection. What if someone breaks into your house and steals a server. All this stuff is probably uncomman, but sh*t happens and you and your customers would be in a bad situation if any of this happens. But if you want to put your DSL or SDSL to use you could always have your backup/support server there so if your main server goes down customers have a place to look at updates and stuff

That last point is a fairly good one. It would be a cheap, reliable way to do offsite tape backups if you had a fast enough connection.

My ISP permits the use of your own servers as long as they are passworded (in theory). Mine websites are so its fine :)

That last point is a fairly good one
thank you. :)

Well SDSL is the business class product, and doesnt necessarily go into homes...it CAN but its perfectly appropriate for a business too

SDSL should be fine for non-mission critical hosting. We host a backup server on our SDSL, and I literally can't tell the difference between a normal site hosted off our SDSL, and a site hosted on our main webservers.

Our SDSL provider is great, hardly any downtime at all. We pay over 200 a month for it, but it's very reliable, and we get 100% usage both ways, 24/7.

well, technically I personally don't expect someone with DSL of any type to do anything terribly critical (IE host banking systems for countries) and the like which need multiple direct-to-backbone redundant connections, as well as possibly redundant sites.


But for standard home/business hosting it should be ok.

for hosting a single site it COULD be OK. But not for any form of webhosting company like this subject first started moving towards.

Im sorry but no matter what speeds you keep saying ya sdsl or cable modem is going at.. its stability and reliability as much as speed and no real firm should ever wish a cable modem connection on any of there customers websites. end of story.

Originally posted by The Laughing Cow
I don't pay for the cable, I live with my parents. They fork out the £10/month for 512k cable :D

Remember... Thats 512k upstream (from internet -> you)

More than likely (all US cable connections I've seen) have the upload throttled down to about 10-15k...

If I saw 10-15k downstream from my host I'd be running.

Internet > me is downstream. Upstream is me > internet. And yes you are right on that point

If you have to host from a DSL or other inexpensive comms link, it , may, in fact be better to use an ISDN line as at least you can guarantee both inbound and outbound bandwidth as there are no contension issues.

When we test 64k ISDN WAN links we find that the network efficiency is mostly higher than for DSL links, so although available bandwidth is lower, TCP retransmissions are minimised for the 64k connection, so that actual connection performance may not be as different as you may first think.

Mind you, I'm not swapping out our DSL link for an ISDN line, no way (but we are not serving customer web sites of it!).

Primary rate ISDN would be nice :)

well i know this is becoming a stupid idea but am planning to host websites of small companies mostly within the metropolis only..and mostly of companies wanting to post company profiles and may some email...is dsl still a bad idea for this?

Since DSL is not a good option, tell me about the alternatives, their costs, and any pros/cons (additional expenses on hardware, setup, etc.).

Originally posted by HostMike
Since DSL is not a good option, tell me about the alternatives, their costs, and any pros/cons (additional expenses on hardware, setup, etc.).

get a dedicated server for $99, from The Planet for example :)

Originally posted by meng_97
well i know this is becoming . . . . Old.

I know it's not 'quite' a year old . . . . . . . . but, probably still a bad idea.