View Full Version : kill my host

01-02-2007, 11:55 AM
i am sick of the speed i get from virtual hosting, and am hesitant to go to the next step of 'virtual private hosting' (VPS), which is basically the same thing but you get guaranteed MB of RAM, as there are less customers per box.

the other way to do it is host locally-- which i did once upon a time.
I am considering this again, because we are about to launch a client area with image galleries, etc-- the current host's php/myql response time, as well as image uploading (ugh) are problematic.

I do have 768 up/6.0 down, which is not T1 but is sufficient.

I do have an available dual 1.25 g4 which i could turn into a webserver by using tiger's native webhosting abilities.
I dont want to use our g5 xserve, since thats the fileserver.
I could also buy a refurbished mini-- which smokes the cpu of the g4 and is only like 600 bucks.

So, why am I posting this? I wonder who has 'gone local' with webhosting, and what CPU really is needed for somewhat heavy php image resizing, for multiple image galleries (not that many clients).

Thanks for your contributions, folks....

01-02-2007, 01:55 PM
Actually for years I went 'local' but recently switched to offsite hosting (Bluehost.com) and have been very happy. The final straw for me was email it came to a point that very few servers would accept email from me because I was not a net-recognized source and they were afraid of spam. I went to a hosting company and got a LOT of service I didn't expect. If you plan to have no email servers running I don't see any problems. Your hardware should be more than sufficient for low to medium traffic.

01-02-2007, 01:58 PM
Thanks for your response.

I would have my ISP handle the email, and only do the web hosting.

I, too, hosting locally in the past-- but i guess I am looking for responses to the hardware configs I have as possibilities-- and how they compare in terms of speed to something like VPS.

01-02-2007, 11:29 PM
Sounds like you are gonna host cause you need to, not because you want to.

If you really just want a reliable host service, you might consider Digital West (http://digitalwest.net/hosting.htm). Wrong coast from you, but savvy guys with a great facility. My employer uses them for a full rack of colo'd servers, plus dedicated Cisco firewall and traffic shaping. No complaints. Unix/Linux savvy with IBM servers, no funny business. They are mere yards from 3 different provider fiber backbones, so no local routing issues either.

01-03-2007, 05:20 AM
well NEED is a funny thing with computers, eh?

the truth is, i really am trying to find the balance between cost and performance. I guess the only way to know is to try VPS-- spend a mere 30 bucks for a month AND set up my local server-- and then compare.

It would be nice to save 30 bucks x 12, but I am actually more interested in performance. The custom built client area has a lot of image resizing and other cpu intensive tasks, which have pushed regular virtual hosting to the limit.
Local would also be super fast for US to publish the images to the server-- thereby delivering to the client faster. However, the users would have a slightly slower download experience (768kbps versus whatever slice of 10mbps they are getting)