[Techtalk] Web-hosting dilemma

[Kathryn Andersen]

On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 04:53:16PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote:
> At 6/4/05 04:23 PM , Kathryn Andersen wrote:
> 
> ... when I saw people saying, "No! Don't run your own server out of your 
> house!", I kind of wondered, "Why the heck not?" That's what I've been 
> doing for about 5 years now.
> 
> Okay, my situation is probably quite different - I'm in the US, where DSL 
> offerings are very different from Australia. At least, that's the 
> impression I've always gotten. You say you've got a static IP, and you're 
> talking about a reasonable upstream bandwidth, so it sounds like you can 
> get everything I think of as critical.
> 
> Basically, my setup is like so:
> 
> * 1.5Mbsp/768Kbps ADSL from Speakeasy, a very geek-friendly broadband
>   provider (their ToS explicitly permits running servers);
The package I would be looking at would be 1.5M/256K, which would cost
me $60 a month -- which is the very edge of my budget.  What I have
currently is 256K/64K, which would be too slow for serving, but only
costs $40 a month.
Both of those have a 5G/5G (peak/off-peak) download limit and no upload 
limit -- though I expect if my site was too popular they would have
something to say to me -- but they do explicitly allow servers.
The static IP doesn't cost anything extra.
If I wanted a greater download limit I'd be paying more, but I'm not
intending to become an afficionado of BitTorrent or the like, so I don't
*think* it will be a problem.  Fortunately, if I go over my limit I
won't be bleeding money, because one can choose to have traffic shaping
as an over-the-limit option, rather than paying so much per MB.

> * Connection includes two static IPs. (More available for more money;
>   I used to have more, but finances got tight, and I can manage on just
>   the two).
I think I can manage on just the one.

> * ADSL router connects to hub, which has two Linux machines on it: one
>   web/email/DNS/etc. server (named Finrod), and one firewall (Galadriel).
At the moment I've just got the one machine; ADSL router (with NAT)
connects to it (colbrand) on eth1, and I also have a wireless router
connected to colbrand on eth0, for an internal network, except that my
laptop, which was the only machine that used it, is dead at the moment.

Colbrand is running a firewall, webserver, mailserver, mailing list
server, IMAP server, and webmail server.
While some would say, ooh, how bad, you ought to have those things
spread out among multiple machines, I don't *have* multiple machines --
I don't even have a laptop at the moment (ah, I miss it).

> * Galadriel does NAT/IPmasq for all other computers in the house
>   (various Windows boxen).
> * Finrod runs DNS, email, and Web service for about a half-dozen domains
>   I administer. This includes POP access for remote users, the whole
>   shebang.
I'm only looking at administering one domain, just for my own stuff...

> * All web service is done using name-based virtual hosting, as described
>   in the Apache docs.
I've set mine up so that www.katspace.homelinux.org does the website,
lists.katspace.homelinux.org does the mailing list server, and
webmail.katspace.homelinux.org does the webmail server -- though the
webmail server is just for me to access my mail from outside.

> * I have arrangements with a few other sysadmin friends to provide
>   mutual secondary DNS and MX services for each other.
I'm using dyndns.org for the DNS service; I've got my
katspace.homelinux.org domain name from them there, but if I drop the
VPS then I'll move katspace.org to this machine as well -- I'm using
their CustomDNS service, I think that should work.
 
> This gives me a fabulous level of independence in terms of my basic net 
> services: I pay my DSL bill every month, and renew my domain registration 
> once per year per domain, and *that's it*. No outsourced email, no web 
> hosting fees, no DNS fees, nothing. Which also means that if some 
> web-hosting provider goes down, or Gmail has a problem (as it seems they 
> did earlier this morning...), I'm still online, merrily serving web pages 
> and receiving all my email.

Well, I'd be paying ADSL bill, domain registration, *and* DNS fees, but
I agree with you about the independence.
To be able to install my own Perl modules whenever I need them!
To run my own mailing lists and have complete control over them!
 
> I have total power over my domains, but I also have total responsibility: 
> if anything screws up, it's on my head to fix it (and pronto!).

True.
I guess my thought is, that I'd be fixing it *anyway*...
People tend to get more stroppy when mailing lists go down than when
webservers go down, I think.  Oh well, I'll cross that bridge when I
come to it.  I run one mailing list on smarthost, and it will be such a
relief when I (soon) change that over to my own server.  No more
battling with techs who say "it's your fault" and do nothing...
Now it will probably be my fault, but I will be able to do something
about it!
 
> I don't recall what other people's objections were to running your web 
> service out of your house. I suppose maybe "You don't want to have to deal 
> with setting up and configuring Apache", but it's really not that hard. 
Oh yeah, no worries, I've got it running.  Did a bit of a battle with
the virtual hosting, SUexec and CGI setup, but I've got that working
now.

> Hell, if you're a sysadmin, you already do that kind of thing for a living, 
> anyway.
Nup, not a sysadmin, just a programmer.  But I've learned a heck of a
lot in the past... ten years of having my own Linux box...
 
> >- I already have a static IP, so setting up a server is fine.
> >- I have more choice of ADSL vendors than I do of VPS vendors.
> 
> Those two points in particular sound like good arguments for hosting it 
> yourself. Assuming, of course, that your DSL provider's ToS doesn't 
> disallow it.

No, the provider is fine with one running servers.
 
> >- I'm not going to worry about UPS, blackouts or dropouts -- this is all
> >  for fun, not profit, and if I temporarily lose my connection, well,
> >  all my friends can share the pain (pokes out tongue).
> 
> I've been running without a UPS for five years now, too, and my uptimes are 
> distinctly above 99.9%. I'm getting the kind of service I'd get from a 
> colo, with more personal control and for no money. (Okay, I pay more for a 
> fast upstream connection. But I think it's worth it.)
> 
> As far as upstream bandwidth goes: if you're going to be serving more than 
> a few pages per minute, you might want to think about getting 384Kbps 
> instead of 256. I don't know what the price points are for those two, or 
> how many hits you expect to get. It's probably not something you need, but 
> might be interesting to think about.

Well, as I said, the 256 is on the edge of my budget, so I wouldn't be
going for more.  The next package up is 512/512 at $80 a month, which is
definitely out of my budget -- though that is what I would have had to
pay for a static IP at most DSL providers around here.  Thankfully
my provider is more accessible.
 
Kathryn Andersen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.
-- 
 _--_|\     | Kathryn Andersen	<http://www.katspace.com>
/      \    | 
\_.--.*/    | GenFicCrit mailing list <http://www.katspace.com/gen_fic_crit/>
      v     | 
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha!  |	-> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe