Getting a dedicated server - What if a group of us get organized to get a dedicated s..?

Well if you trusted the other webmasters I can't see why this could not work.
Chad (anyone?) how much would this cost? (just out of curiosity)
JP

----------
[red]The Next Step in Website Development [/red] - http://www.what-next.com
The Webmaster Promotion and Resource Center

Well, I think Chad couldn't explain it better.
As to how it could work, I am not sure but I think is possible to develop a system that works, from the top of my head I can think of:

1. How to make sure that the ones that are going to participate do not quit, leaving the rest with the burden of paying for his/her space. A contract together with a deposit that will be returned if a 30 day notice is given (just like renting an apartment) could be a solution to this.

2. Who is going to enforce this. I thought that the proposer of the idea should do it but he/she may not have the means. The hosting company is most likely to do it (does anyone thinks that the one of the members should do it).
Talking about the hosting company, I haven't seen this idea developed by other hosting companies. I think, as a product strategy, this is could definitely attract a lot of attention. Now that there is so much fierce competition among them. They all want to compete by differentiating themselves from the other companies, some by giving outstanding customer service, offering some specific feature that others don't have, using certain type of hardware, etc. However, I am not sure if this is a profitable model and, at the end, everything comes to that specific factor.

3. Who is going to maintain the server. I don't know. How often does a server needs maintenance? Will ten user mess up the server too often? I heard Cobalt RaQ2 servers have a low maintenance rate and they are very "easy" to use also. How about a service plan, some sort of flat rate "service insurance" per month?

4. Who is going to decide changes on the server software. What if one want to install PHYTON or something. I think by democratic vote, in that case 11 or 9 members are to be in the server to avoid 50-50 vote.

5. Who is going to control. I guess there has to be a member that is responsible for the server. That person may be the one that has more knowledge about the server but wouldn't take action without other member's approval. That could be the contact person also.

What other problems do you guys see? Are this too many hassles? Is it better to just put your web site together with 1000 other web sites in one server like Chad says? I think this proposition needs some serious consideration.

Share your thoughts please.

I looked at this post last night but I completely forgot about responding

What you would like to do, sergiob, is definitly possible... In fact, I know quite a number of "power-user" Webmasters that do just that.

As for cost, that is not something I can't answer. It all depends on what each of the Webmasters is going to want and thus, what type of server you purchase. But, if you got say 10 Webmasters to put in money for a $500/mo. server (would probably be a fairly nice server with a good chunk of bandwidth), you are looking at $50/mo. for each Webmaster. That is definitly the equivalent of what you would pay for hosting and you guarantee that no more than ten people will be using the server. I am sure this server could easily handle 100+ low-resource sites and 50+ high resource sites... Meaning, each Webmaster could place 5 sites on that server... At $50/mo. each, you are looking at $10/mo. per site and you will have a far more stable system than a host that has 1,000 people on that server.

Of course, you would have to have at least one Webmaster that knows how to maintain a server or you aren't going to get anywhere.

Also, I wanted to comment on your (sergiob) statement about 200+ sites on one server. This is not only possible, but is usually done. We could easily fit 1,000+ low-resource sites on one of our servers and the server wouldn't be over-used and would be as stable as if the server had 2 sites (FYI, we do not put 1,000 clients on one server, ever). However, when these sites start getting into heavy CGI, ASP, etc. the number of sites that you can fit on any one server is definitly reduced... But, you could take 200 very resource intensive sites and place them on one server without significant problems. It all depends on the server, how it is setup, and how it is maintained. Most hosts have several servers that are dedicated to one specific type of site... High resource sites are going to be placed on a less loaded server while non-resource intense sites are going to be placed on a less powerful machine or at least one with more clients. Now, I am not saying that hosts don't put 1,000+ sites on a server as I know many that do... However, I am saying that a host could easily fit more than 200 sites on a server without problems.

----------
Dynamic Internet Solutions : http://www.dids.com
UNIX and Windows NT Hosting

Why are you so interested in a ded server? Do you have many sites?

Anyway, I will try and feature this discussion in my next newlstter as it is an interesting thread...
JP

----------
[red]The Next Step in Website Development [/red] - http://www.what-next.com
The Webmaster Promotion and Resource Center

1. How to make sure that the ones that are going to participate do not quit, leaving the rest with the burden of paying for his/her space. A contract together with a deposit that will be returned if a 30 day notice is given (just like renting an apartment) could be a solution to this.

That is a very viable concern. And I think your solution is about as good as you could do. You would definitly want to make sure that if one left, you had a way to compensate for his portion of the payment (whether it be each of the remaining paying more or finding another Webmaster to take the old one's place).

2. Who is going to enforce this. I thought that the proposer of the idea should do it but he/she may not have the means. The hosting company is most likely to do it (does anyone thinks that the one of the members should do it).

Actually, no, the hosting company would NOT take care of this. The contract is not with the hosting company. One person would be solely responsible for payment of the server so he would in turn collect payment from the other Webmasters. The hosting company would in no way be involved in the "splitting" of the server resources and who pays what to who.

Talking about the hosting company, I haven't seen this idea developed by other hosting companies. I think, as a product strategy, this is could definitely attract a lot of attention. Now that there is so much fierce competition among them. They all want to compete by differentiating themselves from the other companies, some by giving outstanding customer service, offering some specific feature that others don't have, using certain type of hardware, etc. However, I am not sure if this is a profitable model and, at the end, everything comes to that specific factor.

Isn't this what hosts do now? We do it on a much larger scale, but in essence, we let other Webmasters purchase a portion of our servers and in turn, we take care of the maintenance. This is almost exactly what you would be doing. You wouldn't be collecting money for taking care of the server (although you may pay a little less while others pay a little more to compensate).

3. Who is going to maintain the server. I don't know. How often does a server needs maintenance?

It is no easy task. Keeping a server running can be challenging to say the least. A lot will depend on what OS you get, how the users are using it, what type of sites it will execute, what type of applications need to be used, how the server is setup, etc. etc. etc.

People get paid $60,000+ per year to maintain a server - That is quite a chunk of money so you can see that it isn't an easy task. And yes, your server WILL need maintenance. Maybe not every day but it will need it.

Will ten user mess up the server too often?

Again, this depends on a huge number of factors. The server would most likely be more stable than one with 500+ clients on it, although it all depends on so many things.

I heard Cobalt RaQ2 servers have a low maintenance rate and they are very "easy" to use also.

They are very low maintenance and very easy to use. But, with that comes problems. Again, so many factors are involved that it is hard to give you a specific "yes" or "no" answer but Raq's tend to be touchy with CPU intense applications such as CGI. I have never worked with a Raq but I have worked with people that have and some like them, some don't. A lot depends on the sites that the server will be handling.

IMO, you should look at a "real" server if you decide to do this. It won't be as easy to maintain but you will have more control over the server and it should be able to handle just as much as or more than the Raq does - not to mention you could get them for approx. the same price.

How about a service plan, some sort of flat rate "service insurance" per month?

A lot of dedicated server providors do offer these types of plans. Each plan will come with so many hours of support and after that, it is on a per hour basis ($60-$100/hr.).

4. Who is going to decide changes on the server software. What if one want to install PHYTON or something. I think by democratic vote, in that case 11 or 9 members are to be in the server to avoid 50-50 vote.

This would be one of the biggest problems with this type of deal. You would have to have a democratic way of doing it, like you suggested. But, you risk loosing people if they don't get what they need/want for their sites. If it were possible, you would probably want to install it if someone "needs" it. If they just want it, I would definitly put it to the test. Most applications aren't HUGE so they aren't going to eat up that much storage space.

5. Who is going to control. I guess there has to be a member that is responsible for the server. That person may be the one that has more knowledge about the server but wouldn't take action without other member's approval. That could be the contact person also.

Someone that has a knowledge of operating a server would be a big plus in this area ... He would definitly have to wait for the approval of the other residents before doing something but you should make one and only one person the admin with root access (to keep away from problems with people installing stuff without talking with the other residents).

What other problems do you guys see? Are this too many hassles?

I honestly don't know how well this would work but I know a number of people that are doing it and they seem happy.

I don't see any other hassles, although I am sure there is still plenty (if anyone sees any, let us know).

Is it better to just put your web site together with 1000 other web sites in one server like Chad says?

Millions of people do it and continue to do it... Something must not be that bad about it ... Again, most hosts don't put 1,000+ clients on one server. But, it is DEFINITLY possible and could easily be done.

I know we have no set limit on the nubmer of clients we will put on any one machine (except on our high-end machines) but rather we watch resources. We could put 500 HTML-only sites on one server and have the load be the same as another server with 10 sites using tons of CGI scripts. It is all numbers

I think this proposition needs some serious consideration.

It is in fact something that a lot of "power-user" Webmasters consider because they need more control over the server but don't want to pay the money for one, nor do they want to be on a server with 500+ sites.

----------
Dynamic Internet Solutions : http://www.dids.com
UNIX and Windows NT Hosting

Chad,

While you are talking about how much power a dedicated server has for multiple sites, how much 'machine' do you think I would need for the following:

- NT O/S - I am currently running on a 'mixed bag' account, Unix for the speed and NT for ASP and database funtionality. If I am going to go to a single machine though, I run the cgi on the NT until I convert them all to ASP, but I cannot get the Database functions on Unix... so NT it has to be.

- Currently at 300,000 pages/month - but I am projecting this could easily go to 500,000 or more.

- Every page is currently either .shtml (multiple SSIs and CGIs per page). I would be changing over the CGIs to ASPs.

- Future database activity using Access databases for my player pages. This would form our backend and is about 20-25% of our pages.

Your thoughts on what I would need for this and the costs? (I am checking out future possibilities - my game is doing well enough that I am considering taking the 'next step' to a dedicated server).

Matt

----------
1-On-1 Free Basketball Game - [red]Wanna Play?[/red]
http://basketball-game.com

Matt,

Given the following four facts, I would say that a dedicated machine is probably a good idea, although it is going to cost you a good portion of money:

1) The fact that your site runs ASP (resource intensive)
2) The fact that your site needs Windows NT (much more expensive than UNIX)
3) The fact that your site is database driven
4) Given the extremely large amount of visitors you have and are anticipating

I am going to use digitalNATION as my dedicated server host example in this post because they are very reputable, reliable, and have a very large dedicated server client base.

The server that you purchase is definitly going to have to have a good portion of RAM. At least 256 MB and I would highly suggest 512 if possible/affordable.

You are also going to want a powerful CPU (both CPU and RAM are extremely important for database sites, especially those being accessed via ASP). I would recommend a PIII 550 Mhz.

I am not sure about your storage needs but I can't imagine the database being extremely large at this time. I am sure no more than two 9 GB hard drives would be plenty for some time.

Again, I am not sure on your bandwidth but I would assume 50 GB would be enough for now.

I think you will probably be spending $1,000+/month for your dedicated server and bandwidth. Not to mention a $2,000+ setup fee for the server. These are of course estimates (the setup fee more than the monthly fee) but I don't think you will be able to get a server that will handle your site *well* for less than $1,000/mo.

I have just touched on the basics here, of course... And, congratulations on the site. It sounds like it is extremely successful!

----------
Dynamic Internet Solutions : http://www.dids.com
UNIX and Windows NT Hosting

Although that amount won't be completely out of the question, I will likely start off with a bit lower end. If Startpath continues to exist and pay the $5 CPM that I am getting now, I could actually pay what you suggested... but even then, that would be more than I would want to start off with. My current needs on space would fit on one 8-9 gig drive. In fact, that would be a HUGE expansion for me, since I am now in 750 megs and using about 450 megs.

The bandwidth could be lowered to start as well since we are currently using less than 10 gig. The ram and CPU speed? Well, I will have to consider what I can afford in a couple of months or so. I am working hard at making some changes now that will make the move easier later and want to put a some money in the bank from the my current check and next 1 or 2... that would give me an emergency fund to work from.

Matt

----------
1-On-1 Free Basketball Game - [red]Wanna Play?[/red]
http://basketball-game.com

Oh... and THANK YOU! (=

Matt

----------
1-On-1 Free Basketball Game - [red]Wanna Play?[/red]
http://basketball-game.com

Well, I have my own dedicated server. I love it, I can do whatever I want on, when it comes down to it it is great.

Also, it is running Linux Redhat 6.0. Let me say setting it up was easy, it found everything by probing and was running in around 30 minutes. Best of all, the O/S is stable, and FREE.

I decided to buy my own machine instead of renting one from some big company. I work at a computer store, so I just threw one together... It currently runs on a PII300 with 96 megs of RAM. Nothing to big, but I can always go and upgrade it in around a half hour.

Hosting, this is the hard part, hosting is expensive, co-hosting runs around 150 bucks a month depending on bandwith.

Now, setting up you site... You need basic Linux Knowledge, if you know your IP, DNS, and Gateway IPs you can set up the network. Setting up Virtual servers allows you to serve unlimited domains on one IP address. There are two config files you have to edit to set this up in apache. Now, we have installed Webmin for linux and can do everything via the web, it's very easy now.

That is all you need to get it going. I have set all this up and now have started a network. If you think your site qualifies, email me at [email protected] if you would like to see the performance of the server check out http://dlo.net

I built Unix boxes and setup an intranet using NT so I am fairly familiar with both procedures. But, I simply don't have much of a choice as to how I have to go... NT. (See my original message above for amplifying data).

Whether I go rented dedicated or co-location is still up in the air but I expect that I will pay more than $150 a month either way. (=

Matt

----------
1-On-1 Free Basketball Game - [red]Wanna Play?[/red]
http://basketball-game.com

As Randall said before, I definitely think that running a dedicated setrver has advantages. However unless you know how to go about setting up and administering your own dedicated server, you might needa word of caution. Fortunately, when we decided to setup a dedicated server, I had the time to learn the ins and outs of web server administration. If you have time to do this and enjoy it, it's really fun. However if you're currently running a site with 5k a day, I wouldn't suggest going with your own dedicated server and learning how to administer along the way. This is because you'll have numerous security holes open and you probably won't know how to configure the system to get the most out of the available hardware.

I have actually never heard of anyone doing such a thing as you're proposing, but I think that if you have the trust in each other then I think it could work out great.

----------
Gil Hildebrand, Jr.
the dLo network: http://dlo.net, http://gamescout.com, http://gokewl.com, http://gameplaza.net

Thank you all so much for the information on this thread. My search and reading of the threads within this board have been a tremendous help. Excellent info, guys!