[Zope] Pros and Cons of Different Hosting Solutions

[J Cameron Cooper]

> I'm starting to work with clients on Zope-based solutions, but don't 
> yet have a good answer as to how best to host domains that use Zope.  
> What are some of the pros and cons of these solutions that people on 
> the list have found:
>
>    * Custom Zope hosting (say, by exposing a part of the ZMI using a
>      VirtualHostMonster)
>    * Virtual Linux or BSD hosting where you install Zope yourself,
>      probably with limited root access
>    * Any other kind of arrangement folks are using that don't involve
>      setting up your own ISP :-)
>
> What works well for folks, and what have people found to be best buy 
> for themselves and for their clients?
>
> I've gone through the list of Zope Solution Providers, but this 
> doesn't really tell me how to choose between them, or if I should be 
> looking for something more general than any of them.

The options as I understand them, in rough order of cost.

 * Zope folders. Part of somebody else's Zope instance. You are bound by 
the products installed in the master system, and maybe their domain.
   Examples: zope.org, FreeZope.
 * Zope installations. A lot of Zope installations running on somebody 
else's machine. Install your own products via FTP or a web script or 
elsewise. Probably easy to get yourown domain working.
   Examples: many Zope hosts (no names come to mind at the moment.)
 * A remote system. You get shell access to somebody else's machine, 
possibly running a BSD jail or chroot or something. Set up your own Zope 
(it's not that hard!) Upside: you get filesystem access, and can do 
pretty much anything. Downside: you get to do pretty much everything. 
And no Zope support from your ISP. Some (rackspace) can give you a 
dedicated box.
  Examples: most high-end ISPs.
 * A preset remote system. Similar to above, but someone else has setup 
a Zope environment and provides automated facilities for management of 
the surroundings.
   Examples: iMeme
 * Cohosting, self-hosting. Set it up on your own machine, and bring in 
a T1 or SDSL, and go buy a big UPS. Or ship that machine off to some ISP 
to be cohosted. You can do everything software-wise and hardware wise. 
Of course, again, you have to do everything hardwarewise and 
software-wise (although the ISP may do some monitoring.)
  Examples: every ISP on the planet, or maybe your bedroom.

Depending on the site, I usually go one of the bottom two. Here's a neat 
little matrix of my recommendations:

Very-Low-cost, low-traffic, low-reliability, low-hassle: self-host with 
your desktop over your regular connection.
Medium-cost, low-traffic, high-reliablity, medium-hassle: self-host with 
your own machine+UPS over a dedicated symmetric line. Or co-locate.
High-cost, high-traffic, v-high-reliability, high-hassle: bring in a 
leased line and build your own server room. Or co-locate. (And go talk 
to some VCs while you're at it!)

Very-Low-cost, low-traffic, low-reliability, low-hassle: get a shared or 
free Zope-host.
Low-cost, medium-traffic, high-reliability, low hassle: get a dedicated 
Zope host.
Medium-cost, medium-traffic, high-reliability, low hassle: get a 
dedicated Zope host to set up  a dedicated machine.
High-cost, high-traffic, v-high-reliability, medium hassle: get a 
dedicated Zope host to set up  a cluster for you.
High-cost, high-traffic, v-high-reliability, low hassle: get someone 
else to do it for you (and even this is debatable.)

Note that there are many combinations  that don't exist, such as 
anything with low-cost and high-traffic, or v-high-reliability and 
low-hassle. If there's more than one solution to the situation, let 
money, politics, or physical control decide.

          --jcc