Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
What are the advantages and disadvantages of self-hosting something like a svn repository? All links and ideas are appreciated.
Off the top of my head:
Advantages of Self-hosting
Flexibility. On my own machine I can install whatever I want. If I would like to use a vcs like Bazaar and use Loggerhead instead of Trac, then right now there isn't really much choice beyond Launchpad, which has its warts
Save money. Costs add up over time especially for large teams
The free plans offered by sites like Assembla are not private. Anybody can have access to your code
Advantages of Paid hosting (ie: GitHub, Assembla, Google Code)
Robustness. You don't need to worry about your server catching fire because it's become somebody else's problem.
Less hassle. Don't need to be do all the system administration and tweaking of conf files. Instead you can just focus on the coding
For production you should only use self hosting if you are professional sys admin. Can you answer yes to following questions (a bit linux oriented, but you should get an idea):
Can you react to system failure in minutes (I mean you need sleep at least. Do you have somebody to look after system while you are asleep?)
Can you spot a system break?
Can you remove exploits from your system?
Can you recompile kernel. If you can't remove exploits?
Can you configure the system for optimal performance?
Are you willing to pay for UPS, backup storage and alternative internet provider?
If you can answer yes to these questions benefits are very atractive and I would go with it.
On the other hand hosting development environment can be managed by administrator of any level especially when there are such easy to use servers like Ubuntu.
You specifically asked about hosting a subversion repository, so the first disadvantage that comes to mind is data protection. I personally would never trust a third-party with my source code, except for open source code or code of an unimportant side project. Source code is a very important asset for a ISV, so trusting a third-party to protect your source code doesn't sound like a good idea.
And even if it's not about source code, outsourcing other critical parts of you business such as email, accounting/invoicing* is just asking for trouble. And it's not like you don't have to care about backups anymore when you outsource your data hosting. You still should backup your data, in case the hosting company screws up.
*) With outsourcing accounting/invoicing I mean all those new hosted invoicing apps, not getting help from an accountant of course
I find the web interface of external hosts to be hassles. Plus you can have however much space you want on your machine. Like you said, the maintenance can be a burden for self hosting though.
How big is your project? If it is not too big just get an account at http://www.beanstalkapp.com
That is what I did. I do not have to worry about any setups and can focus on the actual development.
If your situation is more complex self-hosting is worth considering. But keep in mind that you would have to take of backups too and that an update of the server screw a lot of things up.
This ties into the server catching fire, but one key advantage of external hosting is that it's (presumably) backed up automatically. Doing your own backups is a hassle, and ends up being less reliable than what you'd get from Google.
With self-hosting there comes great responsibility.
you have to backup everything
you need spareparts for your hardware
if you have stuff that is important you need redundant hardware
you don't have real holidays. if something breaks you have to fix it
In addition to what others have already mentioned, there are also benefits specific to using cloud services by companies like Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, etc.
Despite what some might claim, self-hosting is not inherently "safer." In most cases, it's quite the opposite actually. This is because most small-to-medium-sized companies do not have the resources to provide the level of reliability and redundancy that mega-corporations like Microsoft or Amazon can. Unless you are hosting source code for a top-secret defense project or other projects where the threat of espionage is very real, the greatest threats to your code and your business are more mundane things like server/network downtime.
Redundancy: Cloud services provide levels of redundancy that most businesses simply cannot obtain on their own. This includes data redundancy (back-ups/RAID), hardware redundancy (components/equipment), and geographical redundancy (multiple server locations across the globe). If a natural disaster hits your city, is your data going to be safe?
Multi-tenancy: Each small business by itself cannot afford 24/7 support staff and multi-million dollar equipment. But pooling their resources together through a Cloud service affords them (through centralization and better resource utilization/higher efficiency) access to a much higher level of service.
Security: Related to multi-tenancy, by centralizing the data of thousands of businesses, this allows security resources to be much more tightly focused.
Lastly, it should be noted that most commercial hosting providers offer co-location and dedicated hosting. And even cloud service providers allow customers to configure their "server" however they want, and installing/running whatever applications on it they want. So you can have a great deal more freedom than that offered by $10/month web hosting.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a couple of different projects running for the moment - some PHP apps and a few WordPress instances, which all currently are kept at a web hosting company. The contract period time is about to end and I would lie if I wouldn't say that I really had considered making the switch onto a VPS server in the cloud with the prices getting really great.
I am totally in love with the fact of being able to turn the performance up or down when demand increases, or goes away and thereby cut the costs.
With my background as a PHP developer, with only a little hint of Linux (ubuntu) knowledge, I am thoroughly concerned about the security if I should run my own VPS.
Sure, I am able to install and get things running with my current knowledge (and some help by Google), but is it realistic nowadays to expect that my server (LAMP, really) will stay secure by running out-of the box stuff and keeping it up-to date?
Thanks
Maintaining your server is just one more thing to worry about, and if you're a developer, your focus should probably be on development. That said, it needs to make financial sense to go the managed route. If you're just working on toy projects (I've got a $20/month VPS that I use for my personal projects and homepage, and it's pretty hands-off) or if you're just getting off the ground, VPSes have the great advantage of being cheap and giving you lots of control of your environment. You can even mitigate some of the risk by keeping aggressive backups, since it's easy to redeploy a server quickly.
But, if you get to the point where it won't affect your profitability to do so, you probably should seriously consider getting someone else to take care of infrastructure for you either by buying managed hosting services or hiring someone to do it for you. It all depends on what you can afford to lose if you get rooted and how much time you can afford to invest in server management and recovery as opposed to coding.
I wouldn't. We did the same thing because the non-managed VPS are sooo cheap, but unless you really need to install applications or libraries that are not part of standard shared host setups, in my experience, being a pure developer as well, the time spent is never worth it.
Unless, of course, it is your own tiny blog or you just want to play around.
But imagine you (or whichever automation you use) update php, and for some reasons it fails (or worse, you render your current installation unusable) - are you good enough to handle this? And if so, how long will it take you? Do you have a friend at hand who can help?
We, as a small company, are getting rid of our VPSs step-by-step and moving back to our reseller package, hosted at a good hosting provider.
Good question, though.
As for security, I have successfully used Amazon EC2 for a number of things. It's not the cheapest around, but quite comprehensible in shared data stores between instances, connection to S3, running hosts at different hosting centers etc, grouping hosts in different clusters, etc etc.
They have a firewall built in, where you can turn all things off except say, TCP traffic on port 22 for SSH and 80 for web. That combined with something like Ubuntu, where you can easily run updates without worrying much about breakage, is probably all you need from a security point of view.
You need consider cloud computing as a statement of avaibility, not cost. You can be seriously surprised about the cost at the end.
I already have optioned to use VPS hosting. Good VPS hosting is costly, these days you may find cheap dedicated host compared to VPS. Have look at hivelocity.com – I like their services.
About security, most VPS host company takes care of security for you at the infra-structure level, and some may use antivirus software on files. On dedicated host, you need to take care by yourself or contract managed support services: a tradoff.
LAMP server is cheap everywhere. You can hire a private VPS and have some security, you may count on services like DNS hosting too – this is trouble to configure. VPS can be your first step as you're doubtful and has no experience on hosting. Thereafter when you find out the advantages of having your own server, you'll migrate straight to dedicated server.
What is acceptable from a security standpoint will differ depending on the people involved, what you want to secure and requirements of the product/service.
For a development server I usually don't care so much, so I usually do some basic securing of the server and then don't pay attention to it again. My main concern is more of someone getting a session and using my cycles to run something. I don't normally care about IP so that's not a concern for me.
If I'm setting up a box that has to meet Sarbanes-Oxley, Safe Harbor, or other PII/PCI standards I must meet I would probably go managed just because I don't want the additional security work load.
Somewhere in between is a judgment based on if I want to commit the required time to secure the server to the level I want it secured at. If I don't want to do it myself I pay someone to do it.
I would be careful about assuming your getting a certain level of security just because your paying someone to manage your server. I've come across plenty of shops where security is really an afterthought.
If I understood you correctly, you are considering a move from a web host to a VPS, and wonder if you have the skills to ensure the OS remains secure now that it's under your control?
I guess it's an open-ended question. You are moving from a managed environment to an unmanaged environment, and whether you maintain your environmental security is up to you. If you're running your own server then you need to make sure that default passwords aren't in use (for the database, OS and any services on top), patches are quickly identified and applied, host firewalls are configured properly and suspicious activity alerts are immediately sent to you. Hang on, does your current web host do any of this for you? Without details about your current web host and the planned VPS, you are pretty much comparing apples to oranges.
BTW, I would be somewhat concerned about my LAMP server security, but frankly I would be much more concerned about development errors (SQL injection, XSS) and the packages running on top of my server (default passwords + dev errors).
For a lamp stack, I would probably not do it. It would be a different case if you were using a Platform-as-a-service provider like Windows Azure - by my own experience there is minimal operational overhead and you just upload the app and it runs in a vm (and yes it supports php).
But for Linux there are no such providers that I know of, which means you will have to manage the Operating system, the app frameworks, the web server and anything else that you install on the instance. I wouldn't do it myself. I would consider the options as hiring a person with the relevant experience to do this for me vs the cost of managed services from the vps provider and go with one of those two.
Rather than give you advice about what you should do, or tell you what I would do, I'm just going to address your question "is it realistic nowadays to expect that my server (LAMP, really) will stay secure by running out-of the box stuff and keeping it up-to date?" The answer to this question, in my opinion, is basically yes.
dietbuddha is right, of course: what constitutes an acceptable level of security depends on the context, but for all but the most security-sensitive purposes, if you're using a current (i.e. supported) distro, with sane defaults, and keeping up with the security updates, then you ought to be fine.
I have two VPSs, each of them currently runs Ubuntu 10.04 server. On one of them, I spend some time installing and configuring tiger, tripwire, and taking various other security measures. On the other, I simply installed fail2ban and set security updates to automatic, and left it at that. They've been running for a few years, now, and I've had no problem with either.
You should do it for fun and for learning purposes. Other than that, don't; you're wasting your own time and a lot of other people's time.
I say this because I've wasted serious time setting up an EC2 instance to host my SVN server and a few other things. I mean, I loved setting everything up and messing w/ the server; I learned a lot especially because I'd never done anything a LINUX server before. However, looking back, I wasted a ton of time and had to keep buggin #Jordan S. Jones for help.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
At my company we are looking at hosting a blog and a CMS . We are still in the process of building the product and havent made it live yet. We are looking at some hosting options. We need to have complete root shell access to the system .So, i have the following two questions.
1.) Should we go for Amazon EC2 or VPS, considering our present requirements which i stated above and also considering that we may need to scale in the future ?
2.) If VPS is the way to go for us,could you please recommend some good service.Also which plan should we go for and also how much would it cost ?
Thank You.
Disclosure: I used to work for Linode.
Speaking objectively, I've heard from several customers that have migrated both from EC2 (as well as to EC2) that say Amazon EC2 is a bit difficult to work with for hosting Web services. From the cost per resource to the various quirks of their service -- last I heard, EC2 is designed more for utility computing than running a Web site and its associated services. I would recommend EC2 more for these kinds of applications:
Processing videos and other multimedia.
Throwaway computing, where nodes are added and removed as demand goes up and down.
Any service where CPU is the bottleneck.
A VPS is a much better choice for you, as you get root and -- if a company does its VPS service right -- scaling is ridiculous easy. If you plan for scalability from the get go with a load balancing solution, you can add a node with Linode in under a few minutes.
The two front runners in the VPS market are Slicehost and Linode. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. Again speaking objectively, Linode's cost per resource is better than Slicehost's, and Linode offers a few services Slicehost does not. Both have fairly active and helpful communities, and both are reliable services. Here's a comparison of both where Linode was ultimately chosen, and a discussion on Slicehost's forums with customers taking both sides.
I'm happy to answer any questions you have, on StackExchange or off.
Go with Linode. You won't regret it. I was a customer long before I was hired.
Another thought I just had is that it's unwise to put all your eggs in one basket; I recently completed full support for the wonderful libcloud project, and Slicehost is fully supported as well, as is EC2. Regardless of what platform you choose, management tools are catching up with cloud ideals.
EC2 is only reasonable if you plan on taking advantage of the scaling. With your dev server, I'm sure you're going to want it up at all times, and with that I think the cheapest instance is like $70 a month at amazon.
Just got for Linode. Great community and all that for only $20/mo.
While I agree with other answers that EC2 is more for data processing than web hosting, I found that now EC2 offers free micro-instances for one year and you may sign up for one and play with it yourself and see which is the best option for you.
If you're not planning on scaling up and down on a regular basis I would recommend a VPS. Jed Smith mentioned two options for that and another choice for a VPS is http://prgmr.com/xen/ which I've used and am happy with. They don't offer as many options as Slicehost or Linode, but they offer more RAM per dollar than most other providers I've seen. They also don't offer any wizards or ajax console access or other high level features. However, if you're ok with setting everything up via a command line console they are an option you should consider.
I have been using https://www.atum.com for years. I was with Amazon, it just didn't cut it for my needs. We have a lot of ram and disk requirements, I found the IO/RAM to be quite bad.
I used Linode for a while, they were quite good as well. I went to Atum mainly because of a friend who was with them, had good things to say about the performance. I have a lot of customers in Canada and that is where there datacenter is because of the patriot act, it had to be in Canada so. Atum VPS has been great so far to me =)
We have been using vps.net for a while and quite satisified with it.
I love linode's offerings as well though I haven't used it yet.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Our company is considering moving from hosting our own servers to EC2 and I was wondering if this was a good idea.
I have seen a lot of stuff about can cloud computing (and specifically EC2) do x, or can it do y, but my real question is why would you NOT want to use it?
If you were setting up a business, what are the reasons (outside of cost) that you would choose to go through the trouble of managing your own servers?
I know there are a lot of cost calculations you can put in regarding bandwidth, disk usage etc, but there are of course, other costs regarding maintenance of your own server. For the sake of this discussion I am willing to consider the costs roughly equal.
I seem to remember that Joel Spolsky wrote a little blur on this at one time, but I was unable to find it.
Anyone have any reasons?
Thanks!
I can think of several reasons why not use EC2 (and I am talking about EC2, not grid comp in general):
Reliability: Amazon makes no guarantee as to the availability / down time / safety of EC2
Security: Amazon does not makes any guarantee as to whom it will disclose your data
Persistence: ensuring persistence of your data (that includes, effort to set up the system) is complicated over EC2
Management: there are very few integrated management tools for a cloud deployed on EC2
Network: the virtual network that allows EC2 instances to communicates has some quite painful limitations (latency, no multicast, arbitrary topological location)
And to finish that:
Cost: on the long run, if you are not using EC2 to absorb peak traffic, it is going to be much more costly than investing into your own servers (cheapo servers like Supermicro cost just a couple of hundred bucks...)
On the other side, I still think EC2 is a great way to soak up non-sensitive peak traffic, if your architecture allows it.
Some questions to ask:
What is the expected uptime, and how does downtime affect your business? What sort of service level agreement can you get, what are the penalties for missing it, and how confident are you that the SLA uptime goals will be met? (They may be better or worse at keeping the systems up than you are.)
How sensitive is the data you're proposing to put into the cloud? Again, we get into the questions of how secure the provider promises to be, what the contractual penalties and indemnities are, and how confident you are that the provider will live up to the agreement. Further, there may be external requirements. If you deal with health-related data in the US, you are subject to very strict requirements. If you deal with credit card data, you also have responsibilities (contractual, not legal).
How easy will it be to back out of the arrangement, should service not be what was expected, or if you find a better deal elsewhere? This includes not only getting your data back, but also some version of the applications you've been using. Consider the possibilities of your provider going bankrupt (Amazon isn't going to go bankrupt any time soon, but they could split off a cloud provider which could then go bankrupt), or having an internal reorganization. Bear in mind that a company in serious trouble may not be able to live up to your expectations of service.
How much independence are you going to have? Are you going to be running their software or software you pick? How easy will it be to reconfigure?
What is the pricing scheme? Is it possible for the bills to hit unacceptable levels without adequate warning?
What is the disaster plan? Ideally, it's running your software on servers in a different location from where the disaster hit.
What does your legal department (or retained corporate attorney) think of the contract? Is there a dispute resolution mechanism, and, if so, is it fair to you?
Finally, what do you expect to get out of moving to the cloud? What are you willing to pay? What can you compromise on, and what do you need?
Highly sensitive data might be better to control yourself. And there's legislation; some privacy sensitive information, for example, might not leave the the country.
Also, except for Microsoft Azure in combination with SDS, the data stores tend to be not relational, which is a nuisance in certain cases.
Maybe concern that that big a company will more likely be approached by an Agent Smith from the government to spy on everyone that a little small provider somewhere.
Big company - more customers - more data to aggregate and recognize patterns - more resources to organize a sophisticated watch system.
Maybe it's more of a fantasy but who ever knows?
If you don't have a paranoia it doesn't mean yet that you are not being watched.
The big one is: if Amazon goes down, there's nothing you can do to bring it back up.
I'm not talking about doomsday scenarios where the company disappears. I mean that you're at the mercy of their downtime, with little recourse of your own.
Security -- you don't know what is being done to your data
Dependency -- your business is now directly intertwined with the provider
There are different kinds of cloud computing with lots of different vendors providing it. It would make me nervous to code my apps to work with a single cloud vendor. that you specifically had to code for..amazon and Microsoft I believe you need to specifically code for that platform - maybe google too.
That said, I recently jettisoned my own dedicated servers and moved to Rackspaces Mosso Cloud platform (which have no proprietary coding necessary) and I am really, really pleased with it so far. Cut my costs in half, and performance is way better than before. My sql server databases are now running on 64Bit enterprise SQL server versions with 32G of ram - that would have cost me a fortune on my previous providers infrastructure.
As far as being out of luck when the cloud is down, that was true if my dedicated server went down - it never did, but if there was a hardware crash on my dedicated server, I am not sure it would be back on-line any quicker than rackspace could bring their cloud back up.
Lack of control.
Putting your software on someone else's cloud represents handing over some control. They might institute a file upload size limit, or memory limits which could ruin your application. A security vulnerbility in their control panel could get your site hacked.
Security issues are not relevant if your application does its own encryption. Amazon is then storing encrypted data that they have no way of decrypting.
But in addition to the uptime issues, Amazon could decide to increase their prices to whatever they want. If you're dependent on them, you'll just have to pay it.
Depends how much you trust your own infrastructure in comparison to a 3rd party cloud service. In my opinion, most businesses (at least not IT related) should choose the later.
Another thing you lose with the cloud is the ability to choose exactly what operating system you want to run. For example, the latest Fedora Linux kernel available on EC2 is FC8, and the latest Windows version is Server 2003.
Besides the issues raised regarding dependability, reliability, and cost is the issue of data ownership. When you locate data on someone else's server, you no longer control who views, accesses, modifies, or uses that data. While the cloud operators can limit your access, you possess no way of limiting theirs or limiting who they give access to. Yes, you can encrypt all the data on the server but you lack any way of knowing who possesses root access to the server itself and any means to stop others from downloading your encrypted data and cracking it open. You lose control over your data; depending on what type of apps you are running and the proprietary nature of the data involved, this could engender corporate security and/or liability risks.
The other factor to consider is what would happen to your company if Amazon and/or EC2 were to suddenly vanish overnight. While a seemingly preposterous position, it could happen. Would you be able to quickly fill the hole and restore service, or would your potentially revenue generating apps languish while the IT staff scramble to obtain servers and bandwidth to get them back online? Also, what would happen to your data? The cloud hard drive holding all your information still exists, somewhere, and could pose a potential liability risk depending on the information you stored there--items such as personal information, business transaction records etc.
If I was starting my own business now, I would go through the hassle of purchasing and maintaining my own severs so I retained data ownership. I could control root access to the hardware, as well as control who can access and modify the data.
Unanswered security questions.
Really, do you want your IP out there, where you're not the one in control of it?
Most cloud computing environment are at least partially vendor specific. There's no good way to move stuff from one cloud to another without having to do a lot of rewriting. That sort of lock-in puts you at the mercy of one vendor when it comes to downtime, price increases, etc. If you rent or own your own servers, hosting providers and colos are pretty much interchangeable. You always have the option of moving somewhere else.
This may change in the future, as these things become standardized, but for now tying yourself to the cloud means tying yourself to a specific vendor.
This is kind of like the "Why would you use Linux" comment I received from management many years ago. The response I got was that it is a solution in search of a problem.
So what are your goals and objectives in moving to EC2?
I'd be interested to know if you'd still want to move to a cloud, if it was your own.
Cloud computing has brought parallel programming a little closer to the masses, but you still have to understand how best to use it - otherwise you're going to waste compute cycles and bandwidth.
Re-architecting your application for most efficient use of a cloud computing service is non-trivial.
Besides what has already been said here, we have to consider uniformity across the business. Are all of you applications going to be hosted in the cloud, or only most? Is most enough to pull the trigger on using the cloud when you still have to have personnel to handle a few special servers?
In particular, there might be special hardware that you need to communicate with such modems to accept incoming data, or voice cards that make automated phone calls. I don't know how such things could be handled in a cloud environment.
I have been doing some catching up lately by reading about cloud hosting.
For a client that has about the same characteristics as StackOverflow (Windows stack, same amount of visitors), I need to set up a hosting environment. Stackoverflow went from renting to buying.
The question is why didn't they choose cloud hosting?
Since Stackoverflow doesn't use any weird stuff that needs to run on a dedicated server and supposedly cloud hosting is 'the' solution, why not use it?
By getting answers to this question I hope to be able to make a weighted decision myself.
I honestly do not know why SO runs like it does, on privately owned servers.
However, I can assume why a website would prefer this:
Maintainability - when things DO go wrong, you want to be hands-on on the problem, and solve it as quickly as possible, without needing to count on some third-party. Of course the downside is that you need to be available 24/7 to handle these problems.
Scalability - Cloud hosting (or any external hosting, for that matter) is very convenient for a small to medium-sized site. And most of the hosting providers today do give you the option to start small (shared hosting for example) and grow to private servers/VPN/etc... But if you truly believe you will need that extra growth space, you might want to count only on your own infrastructure.
Full Control - with your own servers, you are never bound to any restrictions or limitations a hosting service might impose on you. Run whatever you want, hog your CPU or your RAM, whatever. It's your server. Many hosting providers do not give you this freedom (unless you pay up, of course :) )
Again, this is a cost-effectiveness issue, and each business will handle it differently.
I think this might be a big reason why:
Cloud databases are typically more
limited in functionality than their
local counterparts. App Engine returns
up to 1000 results. SimpleDB times out
within 5 seconds. Joining records from
two tables in a single query breaks
databases optimized for scale. App
Engine offers specialized storage and
query types such as geographical
coordinates.
The database layer of a cloud instance
can be abstracted as a separate
best-of-breed layer within a cloud
stack but developers are most likely
to use the local solution for both its
speed and simplicity.
From Niall Kennedy
Obviously I cannot say for StackOverflow, but I have a few clients that went the "cloud hosting" route. All of which are now frantically trying to get off of the cloud.
In a lot of cases, it just isn't 100% there yet. Limitations in user tracking (passing of requestor's IP address), fluctuating performance due to other load on the cloud, and unknown usage number are just a few of the issues that have came up.
From what I've seen (and this is just based on reading various blogged stories) most of the time the dollar-costs of cloud hosting just don't work out, especially given a little bit of planning or analysis. It's only really valuable for somebody who expects highly fluctuating traffic which defies prediction, or seasonal bursts. I guess in it's infancy it's just not quite competitive enough.
IIRC Jeff and Joel said (in one of the podcasts) that they did actually run the numbers and it didn't work out cloud-favouring.
I think Jeff said in one of the Podcasts that he wanted to learn a lot of things about hosting, and generally has fun doing it. Some headaches aside (see the SO blog), I think it's a great learning experience.
Cloud computing definitely has it's advantages as many of the other answers have noted, but sometimes you just want to be able to control every bit of your server.
I looked into it once for quite a small site. Running a small Amazon instance for a year would cost around £700 + bandwidth costs + S3 storage costs. VPS hosting with similar specs and a decent bandwidth allowance chucked in is around £500. So I think cost has a lot to do with it unless you are going to have fluctuating traffic and lots of it!
I'm sure someone from SO will answer it but "Isn't just more hassle"? Old school hosting is still cheap and unless you got big scalability problems why would you do cloud hosting?
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
We can see the growth of systems using peer to peer principles.
But there is an area where peer to peer is not (yet) widely used: web hosting.
Several projects are already launched, but there is no big solution which would permit users to use and to contribute to a peer to peer webhosting.
I don't mean not-open projects (like Google Web Hosting, which use Google resources, not users'), but open projects, where each user contribute to the hosting of the global web hosting by letting its resources (cpu, bandwidth) be available.
I can think of several assets of such systems:
automatic load balancing
better locality
no storage limits
free
So, why such a system is not yet widely used ?
Edit
I think that the "97.2%, plz seed!!" problem occurs because all users do not seed all the files. But if a system where all users equally contribute to all the content is built, this problem does not occur any more. Peer to peer storage systems (like Wuala) are reliable, thanks to that.
The problem of proprietary code is pertinent, as well of the fact that a user might not know which content (possibly "bad") he is hosting.
I add another problem: the latency which may be higher than with a dedicated server.
Edit 2
The confidentiality of code and data can be achieved by encryption. For example, with Wuala, all files are encrypted, and I think there is no known security breach in this system (but I might be wrong).
It's true that seeders would not have many benefits, or few. But it would prevent people from being dependent of web hosting companies. And such a decentralized way to host websites is closer of the original idea of the internet, I think.
This is what Freenet basically is,
Freenet is free software which lets you publish and obtain information on the Internet without fear of censorship. To achieve this freedom, the network is entirely decentralized and publishers and consumers of information are anonymous. Without anonymity there can never be true freedom of speech, and without decentralization the network will be vulnerable to attack.
[...]
Users contribute to the network by giving bandwidth and a portion of their hard drive (called the "data store") for storing files. Unlike other peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Freenet does not let the user control what is stored in the data store. Instead, files are kept or deleted depending on how popular they are, with the least popular being discarded to make way for newer or more popular content. Files in the data store are encrypted to reduce the likelihood of prosecution by persons wishing to censor Freenet content.
The biggest problem is that it's slow. Both in transfer speed and (mainly) latency.. Even if you can get lots of people with decent upload throughput, it'll still never be as quick a dedicated servers or two.. The speed is fine for what Freenet is (publishing data without fear of censorship), but not for hosting your website..
A bigger problem is the content has to be static files, which rules out it's use for a majority of high-traffic websites.. To serve dynamic data each peer would have to execute code (scary), and would probably have to retrieve data from a database (which would be another big delay, again because of the latency)
I think "cloud computing" is about as close to P2P web-hosting as we'll see for the time being..
P2P website hosting is not yet widely used, because the companion technology allowing higher upstream rates for individual clients is not yet widely used, and this is something I want to look into*.
What is needed for this is called Wireless Mesh Networking, which should allow the average user to utilise the full upstream speed that their router is capable of, rather than just whatever some profiteering ISP rations out to them, while they relay information between other routers so that it eventually reaches its target.
In order to host a website P2P, a sort of combination of technology is required between wireless mesh communication, multiple-redundancy RAID storage, torrent sharing, and some kind of encryption key hierarchy that allows various users different abilities to change the data that is being transmitted, allowing something dynamic such as a forum to be hosted. The system would have to be self-updating to incorporate the latter, probably by time-stamping all distributed data packets.
There may be other possible catalysts that would cause the widespread use of p2p hosting, but I think anything that returns the physical architecture of hardware actually wiring up the internet back to its original theory of web communication is a good candidate.
Of course as always, the main reason this has not been implemented yet is because there is little or no money in it. The idea will be picked up much faster if either:
Someone finds a way to largely corrupt it towards consumerism
Router manufacturers realise there is a large demand for WiMesh-ready routers
There is a global paradigm shift away from the profit motive and towards creating things only to benefit all of humanity by creating abundance and striving for optimum efficiency
*see p2pint dot darkbb dot com if you're interested in developing this concept
For our business I can think of 2 reasons not to use peer hosting:
Responsiveness. Peer hosted solutions are often reliable because of the massive number of shared resources, but they are also nutoriously unstable. So the browsing experience will be intermittent.
Proprietary data/code. If I've written custom logic for my site I don't want everyone on the network having access. You also run into privacy issues with customer data.
If I were to donate some of my PCs CPU and bandwidth to some p2p web hosting service, how could I be sure that it wouldn't end up being used to serve child porn or other similarly disgusting content?
How many times have you seen "97.2%, please seed!!" for any random torrent?
Just imagine the havoc if even a small portion of the web became unavailable in this way.
It sounds like this idea would add a lot of cost to the individual seeder (bandwidth) without a lot of benefit.