Results 1 to 11 of 11
-
08-10-2002, 10:36 PM #1Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Hudson, Wisconsin
- Posts
- 560
Would this be a valuable service?
I'm not offering it as a service, just feeling out the needs of web hosting clients. Would you try out a host that offered web hosting and reseller packages with the following features?
Load balanced servers (your web site(s) on 2 or more servers).
Full firewall to prevent network attacks
Tier 1 multihomed bandwidth
Reasonably priced
24/7 helpdesk support with 30 min response
I know there are many more things to consider and you would not be able to make a decision from the above information alone. I just see many complaints about downtime, and wondered if people were interested in a load balanced host.
If the host looked decent, would any of the options above sway your decision towards them vs another host without those options.
-
08-10-2002, 11:35 PM #2WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jul 2002
- Posts
- 117
People looking for quality yes very much
-
08-10-2002, 11:38 PM #3Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Dymex DataCenter
- Posts
- 39
I agree with quicksols .
Dymex Hosting
Dymex CP- Coming soon
Windows Server - Coming soon
Aim - DymexSupport
-
08-11-2002, 09:34 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Hudson, Wisconsin
- Posts
- 560
Thank you for those of you who have responded. Any other opinions or comments.
-
08-11-2002, 09:36 AM #5Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Posts
- 267
We need a good 'definition' of "reasonably priced" first
-
08-11-2002, 09:40 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- Westbury, LI NY
- Posts
- 1,705
Some people cant afford to pay what others call "reasonable" so youd have to give us a number. It sounds great, as does a brand new 4 way Xeon mobo and some Xeon MPs to go with it, but I cant afford that either.
-
08-11-2002, 09:47 AM #7Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Posts
- 267
Definitely sounds good though
-
08-11-2002, 09:56 AM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Hudson, Wisconsin
- Posts
- 560
Your absolutely correct, as everyone has a different idea of "reasonable". Here are some potential package offerings with prices, just off the top of my head.
Reseller Package 1:
2GB Disk Space
15GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$49.95
Reseller Package 2:
3GB Disk Space
20GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$55.95
Reseller Package 3:
4GB Disk Space
25GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$65.95
Reseller Package 4:
5GB Disk Space
50GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$119.95
Please keep in mind, these are just ideas and not actual pacakges. They would include other standard features. They would also have the option for 3rd party redundant DNS. Let me know what you think.
What else would you like to see in a high quality host?
Thanks.
-
08-11-2002, 10:41 AM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 1,378
This is a cool idea, but I have a suggestion.
Why not offer some really minimal plans as well, like say 100 MB of Disk Space and 5 GB of transfer, for significantly less. (Most likely a bit more than the usual competition.) Even though my site is in NO way vital, the redundancy idea is cool enough that I might shell out some more money.
However, having two servers side-by-side might not do me any good; what would really distinguish you, IMHO, would be if your servers were in different data centers. Provider A in Chicago goes down? Not a problem, Provider B in Miami is still up. This would definitely be cool, but I don't know about the cost efficiency, or bandwidth. (You'd have to keep the machines synchronized, so when I update my site on one machine, the other gets updated as well.)
Another thought... It wouldn't be unique, but if you offered backup DNS and a backup mail server, and maybe some minimal hosting (even if it's just a "The main site is down, we are working on it" page), people who don't need the redundant servers might want at least some redundancy.
I should make it clear, though, that I'm just speaking from a "That would be cool!" standpoint, and not a "I'd definitely buy it!" standpoint -- for right now at least, I'm just hosting my personal site (shared hosting).
-
08-11-2002, 10:58 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Hudson, Wisconsin
- Posts
- 560
Fog, thank you for the excellent feedback. This type of service would be in addition to smaller, non-reseller packages. The load balancing would more than likely not interest personal web site owners or hobby sites. This thread is mostly brainstorming out load to an audience. The current load balancing idea would have minimum of 2 servers at a single data center. Each server would be on a different multihomed connection. That certainly would not eliminate down time if the entire data center was destroyed. I would have the option of load balancing at different data centers, to seperate them geographically.
How would something like this work for smaller plans with load balancing. Again, just off the top of my head.
100MB Disk Space
2GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$5.95
200MB Disk Space
3GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$7.95
500MB Disk Space
5GB Data Transfer
CPanel/WHM
$14.95
As for keeping the servers in sync, I was thinking about rsync or something like it. I would be able to sync the servers ever XX minutes over VLAN. Again, just thinking out loud. Let me know your thoughts.
-
08-12-2002, 12:34 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 1,378
Well... I don't know if you can do those prices. I have a plan similar to your cheapest one (slightly more transfer), and I pay $6.99/month, and consider it really cheap.
The geographically-separated idea isn't at all anything necessary, but it is "cooler" than saying "I have two servers side by side." Having them on different multi-homed connections is a good idea. (The chances of a data center being physically destroyed are hopefully quite slim, and if the data center is for some reason attacked, I'd be more concerned about the people inside than the status of my website.) By keeping it in one data center, you could just run a GigE line or something between the servers, as opposed to using 'real' Internet bandwidth between multiple data centers.
Lastly, rsync was exactly what I was thinking too If you get a dedicated interconnect (as opposed to going out on 'real' bandwidth), you could get away with syncing 'em *really* frequently.
I'm more interested in the 'cluster' concept for availability than for performance -- as you said, load-balancing isn't going to do me any good if I have 2 GB of transfer a month, but if one server can take over for the ever in the event of a failure, I would be interested.
I think there are two 'audiences,' too... There's the "Well, this is my eBiz... If it goes down, I'm losing millions of dollars every minute." type people, then there's the "Ooh, a failover cluster. That's cool!" crowd. The former crowd would probably shell out big bucks for expensive plans, whereas people like me wouldn't pay much more than average, but if you were competitively-priced, it does give you an advantage.
(Another random thought... If you had the failover cluster, it could actually make your life easier -- if you have three or more and one goes down, you really don't have to rush to fix it. If it stayed down for days people might get angry, but if there are a bunch of redundant nodes, I'm not so sure that the difference between "I'll look at it tonight" and "OMG! Drop everything and fix it!!!" is going to matter much.)