Hosting my own dedicated web server from home

[IndyColtsFan]

Bandwidth limits. People still deal with standard DSL which has low upload which is needed to host
Later security. You have to make sure the security on your web host server is top notch. Most people do not have time to configure (or even reconfigure) their network to make sure there are no holes
Maintenance. The server has to be patched, restarted, changed, etc. by you. With a VPS, the hoster takes care of all of that.

The good thing about your own hosting is you control everything.

I'd never host a commercial site from my home, but IMO, hosting a personal site is a great learning experience as long as you do have some knowledge and can patch and harden the environment. Too often, you'll have IT wannabes grab a copy of Windows server and place the box directly on the internet with no clue of what they're doing. I really don't know how anyone could POSSIBLY think using a blank password was a good idea.

Many years ago, during one of the big worm outbreaks (Code Red?), I decided to review my ISA server logs and lo and behold, I found a bunch of DSL/Cable IPs trying to infect my system (obviously, they couldn't as I was fully patched). Anyway, I decided to RDP to a few of those IPs and quickly found at least 2 boxes that had BLANK ADMIN PASSWORDS. I was able to log in, review their config, and could even see that someone was currently logged in at the console.

People like that should NOT be attempting stuff like this. All too often, we get people who think they can build servers, networks, etc. because they can build a computer and it inevitably bites someone in the butt.

 

[imagoon]

Exactly. The other 68% do.

Uh huh. You keep lowering your credibility. You might want to stop that.

News flash: The other 68% isn't linux based or some derivative.

 

[drebo]

People always say this but what is the reasoning? Assuming the ISP allows it or does not care, it will be much cheaper, and you can put the most powerful hardware you want without paying extra (other than the one time cost). Heck you can have a full blown cluster if you want to and configure it exactly how you want physically. With leased dedicated servers you don't have easy or any access to the hardware which can make things hard. Any downtime is going to be very extended as you are waiting for support, or in the case of a colo you need to ship a part which can take weeks.

Given the choice I'd host all my stuff at home in a heart beat. I wish my ISP would offer business packages. For some odd reason they don't for this new fibre service.

Why? Well, let's think about it.

- At home, you don't have adequate power protection.
- You don't have a generator.
- You don't have any redundancy to the Internet.
- You don't have adequate bandwidth for any sort of major traffic. You won't get far on a standard 50/10 Comcast connection.
-The power cost of running the server 24/7 is probably more than a $5/mo HostGator account costs.
- There are significant security concerns, both physical and computer-wise. Exploits in software are found every day. Do you really want to be responsible for maintenance yourself?
- There are performance concerns.
- Etc. Etc.

The bottom line is, though, that between the cost of a server (let's say you buy one used for $1500) and the cost of the power to run the server, you're never going to break even with a shared hosting account from a major hosting provider.

As an experiment? Sure. As a production web site? Hell no.

 

[imagoon]

Have you ever asked for a ram or HDD upgrade from a dedicated server provider? It's like 20 bucks per month per GB. If you have access to the hardware and that it's yours you just schedule downtime and put as much ram or hard drives as you want in it without paying extra. It's about cost and also about convenience. If you want a complex setup you can easily do it too when you have full physical access to it at any time. The next best thing is collocation as you can build your own really powerful server and send it in and still pay what you'd pay for a low end leased box, but then the hardware is still a couple hundred miles away down south so upgrades or troubleshooting is not exactly easy or cheap.

For my online server I'm limited in terms of disk space and ram due to cost, but at home I have TB's and TB's of space and can easily add more at any time. What I have thought of doing is doing iSCSI over a VPN tunnel to add more space to my online server but the latency on that would probably not be very good.

would really be nice if home internet connections were treated more as a raw pipe where you can buy as many static IPs as you want and do what you want etc... I'd host stuff at home in a heart beat. Way cheaper in the long run.

Of course if all you have is a cheap oversold shared hosting plan that's a different story, and for some people that may be good enough. But it is a slap in the face when it's down and you can't do anything about it.

Also Google has done studies on temperature of equipment and failure rates, and you can pretty much run stuff at 25 degrees and you're fine. No need for AC for a small home setup.

I am not sure where you are looking for hosting but I never have "RAM" issues or disk issues. My recent disk allocation was upped to 8TB and pay $100 a year so.

The problem is that it isn't "Way cheaper." Hosted remotely I don't have to deal with accessibility. My podunk site is hosted on 8 different carriers. Sitting on EMC storage on hosts with more than 1/2 TB of RAM per host.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Why? Well, let's think about it.

- At home, you don't have adequate power protection.
- You don't have a generator.
- You don't have any redundancy to the Internet.
- You don't have adequate bandwidth for any sort of major traffic. You won't get far on a standard 50/10 Comcast connection.
-The power cost of running the server 24/7 is probably more than a $5/mo HostGator account costs.
- There are significant security concerns, both physical and computer-wise. Exploits in software are found every day. Do you really want to be responsible for maintenance yourself?
- There are performance concerns.
- Etc. Etc.

The bottom line is, though, that between the cost of a server (let's say you buy one used for $1500) and the cost of the power to run the server, you're never going to break even with a shared hosting account from a major hosting provider.

As an experiment? Sure. As a production web site? Hell no.

- who says you don't? It's not that expensive to get a decent UPS or inverter-charger, or if you want a more serious setup you get -48v rectifiers and inverters and good surge protectors. It may be expensive up front but you only have to pay for it once. You need protection for your home stuff anyway so should already have at bare minimum a regular UPS
- why not? Unless there's some stupid bylaw or HOA law if you are unfortunate enough to live in such area, nothing stops you from getting a generator. Again, one time cost
- that could be an issue unfortunately, especially because ISPs are allowed to be a monopoly. We need more ISPs and more competition, but yes this could be an issue. Depends how serious uptime is and how reliable your ISP is.
- here we're assuming that fibre is available. Obviously a bad idea otherwise.
- power cost is very small (definitely smaller than 100 bucks which is a typical minimum cost for a hosted server). Look at your bill, your actual usage is maybe about 50 bucks, the rest of the bill is all the BS fees they add after. Also a $5 dollar host gator account is an oversold shared hosting account, not a dedicated server. Can't compare the two. Most of these super cheap hosts oversell their resources. Try to use it as a place to put your backups and see how long they let you do that.
- and data centres are magical security barriers that will stop hackers? you still have to manage your own security if you are hosted in a data centre. They may possibly have IDS firewalls but nothing stops you from doing that at home
- performance? At home the sky is the limit. You are not paying anything extra per month based on server performance so build the biggest beast you need, a cluster, does not matter, because you're only paying for it once.

I've had my online stuff on a dedicated server for about 5 years, paying $100/mo for a crappy core 2 quad with 4GB of ram and 500GB disk space. I paid that server off like 5 times. If I was allowed to host from home I would have a better server without paying anything per month.

I am not sure where you are looking for hosting but I never have "RAM" issues or disk issues. My recent disk allocation was upped to 8TB and pay $100 a year so.

The problem is that it isn't "Way cheaper." Hosted remotely I don't have to deal with accessibility. My podunk site is hosted on 8 different carriers. Sitting on EMC storage on hosts with more than 1/2 TB of RAM per host.

Where are you hosted that you can get that much resources for so cheap? The highest I've seen is 2x2TB drives at most providers, and it's very expensive to add more, and they don't give you the option to outright buy the hard drives you need to pay extra per month. Here's examples of what I mean:

http://www.caratnetworks.com/in-stock-dedicated-servers.php
https://store.softlayer.com/configure (that's US dollars too so even more expensive)
Most other providers if you google for more are similar configs. It seems most server providers are about 5 years behind as they just want to reuse old hardware to get more money out of it.

This is actually the cheapeast I've found, but they're never in stock:
http://www.ovh.com/ca/en/dedicated-servers/

I've been thinking of moving my server to one of those once they're in stock though. But still, if I was allowed to host from home it would be practically free. Heck, it would be free, I'm paying for internet anyways.

Someone in another thread was saying that you can get motherboards now that only use like 20 watts. So you could build a server on that platform as well and power would really be non issue. But even then my whole rack uses about 400w which is not that much. It cost me less to run all that stuff than my single crappy online server.

ISPs need to be forced to be common carriers and people hosting stuff at home should be more common. It would at least somewhat help decentralize the internet a bit, right now everything is too centralized. A data centre goes down (it happens) and a LOT is taken out with it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Many years ago, during one of the big worm outbreaks (Code Red?), I decided to review my ISA server logs and lo and behold, I found a bunch of DSL/Cable IPs trying to infect my system (obviously, they couldn't as I was fully patched). Anyway, I decided to RDP to a few of those IPs and quickly found at least 2 boxes that had BLANK ADMIN PASSWORDS. I was able to log in, review their config, and could even see that someone was currently logged in at the console.

People like that should NOT be attempting stuff like this. All too often, we get people who think they can build servers, networks, etc. because they can build a computer and it inevitably bites someone in the butt.

Yikes yeah that is scary. Though they'd probably do the same thing if it was hosted in a data centre, so that does not change much. Some people should not be managing servers no matter where they're located. :biggrin:

 

[Phynaz]

Running your own web server. How quaint.