Hosting multiple websites on a home network server

[Solutionit]

Greetings,

I have a win2003server box behind a router behind a smoothwall box on my home network and I am wondering the most efficient way of hosting multiple websites // pointing multiple domain names to different servers or folders on that machine...

thank you for any input

Dan

 

[KSoD]

It would be advised not to run a server from your home. First you would have to be able to allow thousands of connections to the PC at once. Not to mention you better have a upload speed of a GB for the sites to even load within a resonable amount of time.

 

[mikesgroovin]

The OP just says multiple websites, it doesn't say that he/she is trying to host a search engine to compete with Google

 

[mikesgroovin]

Greetings,

I have a win2003server box behind a router behind a smoothwall box on my home network and I am wondering the most efficient way of hosting multiple websites // pointing multiple domain names to different servers or folders on that machine...

thank you for any input

Dan

Well, the smoothwall aside... It's really a matter on how quickly you want to have traffic propagated. In all honesty, I would try/test using an extremely simple method first like:
Setting up all of your record headers/websites in IIS and then use a free NO-IP.com account to point each website to the same IP. Of course, you will just have to host each in it own folder and the point them accordingly.

 

[CrazeD]

You could install a WAMP (Windows Apache MySQL PHP) program, because IIS sucks (imo).

WAMP's generally aren't really that secure so if you want that added security it's best to configure everything yourself.

Then just do as Dr. IP said and get a free DNS.

 

[mikesgroovin]

You could install a WAMP (Windows Apache MySQL PHP) program, because IIS sucks (imo).

WAMP's generally aren't really that secure so if you want that added security it's best to configure everything yourself.

Then just do as Dr. IP said and get a free DNS.

Not a huge fan of IIS either. In fact, it's been the root cause for most of my past year's 2003SBS issues. LOL

 

[KSoD]

The OP just says multiple websites, it doesn't say that he/she is trying to host a search engine to compete with Google

What does this have to do with what i said? Even hosting 3 sites that get activity from 5 people could cause his net to lag if he uses a cable connection with only 768Kb/s upload. Hosting any site form a Personal PC isnot a good diea for the fact the upload limits that are imposed. It is much easier for someone to downlaod contect than for someone to upload it form a home PC connection.

Then comes in the issue if your net goes down and someone tries to access the site. There is no redundency at all. There is no fail safe if the site gets hacked your PC goes down as well along with the PC since he only wants to do via folders not partitions.

Not to add into the effect that if the site does get up on google at all it will be nothing but trouble from him hosting it from home.

 

[mikesgroovin]

Greetings,

I have a win2003server box behind a router behind a smoothwall box on my home network and I am wondering the most efficient way of hosting multiple websites // pointing multiple domain names to different servers or folders on that machine...

thank you for any input

Dan

It would be advised not to run a server from your home. First you would have to be able to allow thousands of connections to the PC at once. Not to mention you better have a upload speed of a GB for the sites to even load within a resonable amount of time.

What I meant was that:

1) He never implied that he would have "thousands of connections" simultaneously hitting his server.

2) He never mentioned what kind of connection(s) he was dealing with (you can have redundant home ISPs)

All he wanted to know was how to efficiently host more than one website on a server at home. Sure, we could suggest all day that he buy a fiber run and a few rack mounted RAID10 blades ... but, he just asked a simple question. You don't have to have a large amount of bandwidth to host a couple websites from your house. That's all that I'm getting at I suppose.

Sorry Makaveli213, I didn't mean to step on your toes. I was just trying to answer his question rather than assume more than what was in the original post without asking.

 

[KSoD]

It is not a assumption. As most common home users do not have redundant home ISP's. They will not pay to have 2 ISP and sets of cable and/or Fiber running to the house to make sure they have back up.

In all honesty it is just better to just say dont do it then to try and get their hopes up for something that is close to impossible form the home.

Plus it is not wrong to assume for thousands of connections. If the sites that he hosts are good and get hits then there would be that many connections. Along with if Google got it.

To me it just seems more accurate to tell them what they will be up against than to say "Sure you can" and watch as they get disappointed and upset cause they cant really do it the way they wanted.

I am not trying to kill the hope. I am just trying to show them what they have to face first. If they still want to do it then we can guide them along the way after they know the ill effects they face.

Better to let them know the bad side and have them say they want to do it then not say anything and have them come back and ask why we didnt warn them of thigns to come. At least that is how i see it.

 

[mikesgroovin]

Well, it's a little more complicated of an answer than "Sure you can". It's a forum, why not answer the question from both angles. You could answer the question and then give an informative "But, beware" afterwards. Or better yet, ask what kind of traffic he plans on having over the course of the next 5 years. We can rattle off our opinions all day without answering anything