On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:16:57AM -0500, Robert OConnor wrote: ,----- | There seems to be a benefit to having | one's own server connected to a big | pipe. There are pluses and minuses either way... read on... | | Now, it seems like some issues about sharing | zope have not been resolved. | | Say I share a Zope server with | my one domain name and sell service | to _my_ customers. | | * What databases can I use? In a scenario where you are using shared servers provided by a hosting company, you have to go with what they allow. MySQL hosting is pretty common these days. | *Can I use add-on products? It depends. With many hosting companies, you can do almost anything you can do in a Unix environment without root access. For example, I am using a shared hosting service (that costs $30/mo). I was able to download Zope, build it and install it. I'm having some authorization problems, but I expect to be able to get around those soon enough. So, basically any CGI sort of program can be installed. I cannot, however, make changes to the web server configuration or install some other kind of web server. | * Do they have to be tested by the Host | service first? Let me give a different example. If you want them to install some unusual Apache module, they will doubtless want to test it first. And with very good reason: *they* are responsible for the webserver software. This would be true in some dedicated server scenarios. The service that I buy from them includes maintenance of the hardware *and* software. The only thing they don't maintain is my content and applications. Consequently, they don't want to run a piece of software that they are uncertain about. | *How do I get charged If I want to | add a second and more | domain names? This depends on the hosting company. I believe the company I get service from allows you to attach other domains to your directory hierarchy for free. If I wanted additional disk space, bandwidth allotment, etc, I would basically need to sign up a second account. | I've started to look at these options because | Hosting at my location would be very | expensive with a small pipe. Cable modems | which aren't here yet may be problematic | in their own way. | | Of course, the bottom line is the cost: | | ~Shared: US$50/month +... | VS | ~Dedicated: $100 to $300 to infinity and beyond! | `----- In general, I'm of the opinion that using some kind of hosting arrangement is a better way to go than getting a relatively small pipe to your location. One of the good things about web hosting is that it is pretty easy to move to a different service model or hosting company if things aren't working out. If you're just starting things up, and if you don't need access to the server software, I'd recommend trying out a shared service. (A *good* shared service, don't go for the absolute lowest price you can find.) If, on the other hand, you need access to the server software or are expecting high volume early on, you'll probably want to go with a dedicated server solution. Again, I wouldn't go completely lowball on this, if you're trying to run a business based on this service. Go for a company that really seems to know what they're doing and seems to have bandwidth available. (Just because a company says they have 2 T3s, doesn't mean they aren't already pumping 85Mbit/s through there...) Kevin