Results 1 to 18 of 18
-
02-15-2007, 08:02 AM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3
Is 2.5meg upload adsl enough for a home based web server?
Is a 2.5meg upload speed sufficient for a home based web server hosting a single web site? What kind of speed does an average shared hosting plan offer compared to 2.5 upload on adsl?
I want to host my web site at home and I can get a business adsl2 deal where the upload speed is 2.5meg. It's £88 a month.
There will be photos on almost every page on the site, the images will be no bigger than 128kb. As a rough estimate the typical page will be between 20-140kb (mostly because of the photos - of gardens and animals).
I will be running sql 2005 express on the web server, which will probably be Windows 2003 Web Edition
The main reason I want to host it at home is because users can upload their own photos and html content. If it becomes popular I will need lots of disk space and don't want to end with huge hosting bills for extra disk space. I know it will be a challenge but I really want to learn and take control of my own web site.
Is 2.5meg useless for web hosting or is it going to be pretty good? What do you think?Last edited by gaznewt; 02-15-2007 at 08:03 AM. Reason: Title said "IS" should have been "Is"
-
02-15-2007, 08:06 AM #2Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Buffalo, NY
- Posts
- 2,638
Save your £88/month and purchase shared hosting (or a VPS if you really want control). As you said, your website is small. There's no need to host it from your house, and there's no need to spend a lot of money to do it. Performance won't be good on a DSL line; maybe if you were on FiOS.
-
02-15-2007, 08:07 AM #3Eternal Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 10,710
I think if you're just starting, 2.5meg would be okay, but you will experience saturation eventually. It isn't worth the extra money.
Lots of shared hosting plans offer 100meg or even 1,000meg (gige) at this point. (large dedicated server provider, softlayer, offers 1,000meg connections)MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business
-
02-15-2007, 10:09 AM #4Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Glasgow
- Posts
- 289
I wouldn't think you'd get the maximum 2.5mbps (obviously dependant on your distance from the exchange etc..)
Your ISP may not allow running a webserver from your connection, check their TOS, or they may have traffic shaping to throttle such use.
And remember you're relying on BT to provide your only connection to the outside world, and in my experience that's not a good idea.
It'd be alot cheaper and alot more reliable to go with a reputable UK based VPS provider.
-
02-15-2007, 10:26 AM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3,666
You could purchase a dedicated server for this price, or even colocate your own server and not worry about disk costs if you put in large hard drives.
ReliableSite.Net LLC - Offering Enterprise Grade Dedicated Servers Since 2006 [New York City metro / Miami, FL / Los Angeles, CA]
Customers are our #1 priority - Read Our Reviews
Need epic pricing on 1G and 10G unmetered? We have amazing deals and a 10 minute setup time! Click here to view incredible deals.
-
02-15-2007, 10:30 AM #6WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- UK, Northern Ireland
- Posts
- 149
i wouldnt recommend it, for the sake off $5 per month you could get a shared host with a 100mb line and it would be more relaible then your home server.
or if you like the thought off a server you can find them for under $90 with 100mb line but if its only a personal site it would be a waste off money
as mentioned above using bt for your main line deffiantly isnt recommended
-
02-15-2007, 10:51 AM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Posts
- 771
For 88 pounds a month, you could get a decent dedicated server on a shared 100mbits line, thats what I'd go for.
-
02-15-2007, 11:00 AM #8Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Detroit, MI
- Posts
- 1,962
Originally Posted by gaznewt
If you need guarenteed speed, get SDSL, there's a reason it costs more..
-
02-15-2007, 11:08 AM #9Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 41
If you buy a shared hosting for your home based web site it will be better than your own Computer.
-
02-15-2007, 11:11 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- USA
- Posts
- 667
Running a server out of your house isn't a very good idea. Although it may sound nice, the added costs will catch up to you before you know it. Unless your using it for testing or training purposes I wouldn't recommend it. The price of getting a simple plan from a host will be a LOT cheaper, less headachs, more secure and just all around better.
Jim - 2Macs H-Sphere Web Hosting
Since 2001 - H-Sphere Clustered Shared Linux & Windows Hosting
Fully Managed Services| Custom Web Designs
Unconditional, 30 Day Money back Guarantee!
-
02-15-2007, 11:11 AM #11Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 205
gaznewt I know the angle you are getting at here. You want the easier control of your server in your own office or at home rather than have to travel miles to co-lo. The main advantage being that you can upgrade / monitor / manage the server during breakfast.
The problem is that adsl(2) is not geared up for this kind of thing. As another poster says SDSL is the better choice but this is way too expensive. Not only that but you won't get the same reliability as with a traditional webhost.
And what about contention rate? Even though you may be able to get 2.5Mb max that could be shared between 10/20/50 other users on the same line as you.
Hosting at home is perfectly fine for a hobby site but forget it for anything else. We have to wait another 5 years before the technology is there to allow hosting@home / home office to be viable.
-
02-15-2007, 05:37 PM #12New Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3
Thanks a lot for the comments everybody.
It's clear I need to ditch the idea of self-hosting - it's just not viable at the moment. My local exchange isn't set for sdsl until Q3 2010.
I will check out discountasp and maximumasp. The one thing I don't like about hosting companies is that if I exceed the disk space I need to buy more. And at £10 for an extra 50meg it seems like a money making scheme they've got going on.
I will end up eating up 50meg in a week if my website takes off. An extra £10 a week!! How can anybody charge £10 for 50meg?
-
02-15-2007, 05:55 PM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 661
Just to answer the 2.5meg connection question. No, 2.5 meg isn't enough if you are hosting pictures. If you take an example that you have 10 people on your site downloading a high quality 1 mb picture, your 2.5 meg line becomes something around 30K for each person, worse than a dial-up modem. :I doubt that many people would appreciate downloading at modem speeds from their 4meg cable connection
Originally Posted by gaznewtLast edited by allanon; 02-15-2007 at 06:00 PM. Reason: error
Allanon
vBulletin, Invision, phpBB and Gallery2 enthusiast
my current webhost: imountain.com -|-|-|- my dedicated server: CIhost.com -|-|-|- dump host: Canaca
my picture gallery: http://borgclan.com/gallery2
-
02-15-2007, 06:42 PM #14New Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3
Yeah you're right. Discountasp does an extra 500meg for $5, however if my site is popular and users are uploading pictures all the time then 500meg will still vanish in no time. In a year or two I'll have huge fees to be pay for disk space that would cost peanuts if I bought a hard drive from a shop.
Can you image if flickr had to pay 5$ for every 500meg of pictures!
My code resizes the uploaded photos so they're never greater than 128k so ~5000 uploaded pictures = an extra $5. Doesn't sound so bad really. If I'm getting 5000 picture uploads I would surely be making money on google ads and other revenue making schemes.
I've talked myself into it here
-
02-15-2007, 07:55 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- Location
- Boston
- Posts
- 1,568
Space is not the only factor here. Think about what would happen if:
- there is a black out at your house, your site would be down.
- your circuit breaker flips, your site would be down.
- a thief comes into your house and steals your server, your site would be down.
I think you can see where I'm getting at here. What you're missing is redundant power, connections, and security. If you really want the most control you can get, go colo--forget about shared hosting.
-
02-15-2007, 08:33 PM #16Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Glasgow
- Posts
- 289
oh, and. you're insurance might not cover you if you're server is left on 24/7 and for some reason catches fire..
these are all factors alot of people overlook..
-
02-16-2007, 05:21 AM #17Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Posts
- 205
But those things can happen at a datacenter too!
-
02-16-2007, 05:29 AM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2000
- Location
- Sheffield, South Yorks
- Posts
- 3,627
They do, but generally speaking you don't have to do anything but let them sort it out. Spending £90/month on ADSL that still isn't really going to be suitable for the job would be a waste of money, far better to get a VPS from somewhere reputable, or a large shared account with a good provider.
Karl Austin :: KDAWS.com
The Agency Hosting Specialist :: 0800 5429 764
Partner with us and free-up more time for income generating tasks