Suggestions on reseller vs. hosting provider

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Suggestions on reseller vs. hosting provider

Posted by wolverine, 09-20-2000, 10:48 PM
I have been researching web hosting and reseller options with thoughts of starting a web hosting company. I've looked at Alabanza, and like their settup, but am wondering if this is a good option for a start-up. I've also looked at other reseller programs (some of which use Alabanza) that require far less cash outlay to get started. So, any opinions on which would be a better option to get started? I'm leaning in the resellar direction, due to less cash outlay, but don't like the idea of another layer between my customers and the actual provider. Should I go ahead with something like Alabanza, recognizing it may take longer to recoup my investment? My plan is to offer domain registration (through http://www.opensrs.com) and web hosting to small businesses.
Posted by CFoxHost, 09-20-2000, 11:05 PM
With a nice control panel there is not much to worry about with the extra layer. Most issues that would come up can actually handled by the clients themselves (creating email accounts, for instance). The extra layer can often work to your advantage if you do not have a lot of technical skills, and if you have a host with fast service. If you do not already know how to do your own administration, then you may be better off as a reseller for awhile, let the host take care of problems while you build your company and read some tech books On the other hand, if you have technical skills, can admin your own server, and have at least enough revenue to at least pay the monthly charges then you will probably be best off with a dedicated server.
Posted by wolverine, 09-20-2000, 11:47 PM
Thanks for the feedback. Well, I think I have the technical skills (Linux/FreeBSD at home, Sun and HP at work). As for revenue, I have a VISA card with an enormous credit limit, but I really hate to go out on a limb like that. :-) I think I'll take your suggestion and start out slowly as a reseller, and move to my own server later. Just seems less risky that way. But, for future consideration, any idea on how many sites (on average) can be hosted on an Alabanza server? Their web pages are relatively lacking in providing that type of info (I know, it depends... but ballpark figures would be nice for planning). If I go with Alabanza, do I get my own (dedicated) server? How big? (CPU, disk, etc)?
Posted by kunal, 09-21-2000, 01:07 AM
An Alabanza Server or any other server can hold about 200 mid sized sites. If you go with Alabanza, yes you get a dedicated server. The config of the server depends on the cash you have.
Posted by Learner, 09-21-2000, 02:26 AM
Kunal, would you please define "mid-sized"? Suppose I have a: 550 Mz PROCESSOR 512 MB RAM 9.6 GB HD 50 GB Bandwidth/month free Linux If I sold 200 accounts of 20 MB each, that would mean: (200 X 20 MB) / 1024 MB = 3.9 GB space used up. Couldn't I use up the remaining space in some way? Or are webhosting companies forced to distribute varying packages offering different amounts of disk space to fill up a nice percentage of the disk? Also, ideally how much percentage disk space should be left un-utilized for optimal server performance when about 200 - 300 sites are hosted on it? Learner
Posted by kunal, 09-21-2000, 02:37 AM
Well a mid-sized server would be 550 Mz PROCESSOR 128-256 MB RAM 9.6 GB HD 50 GB Bandwidth/month free Linux Normally any web host, would have a variety of plans, not just one! Hmmm.. Well Un-utilised space should be abt 5%-20%? Also, more then the disk-space it depends on the Processor power utilised by the sites hosted by you and the amt of bandwitdh consumption.
Posted by Learner, 09-21-2000, 03:21 AM
Thanks Kunal! Forgive me for repeating a question here, because I'm still not too sure of the correct answer: According to your post, assuming the same server specs as before, let us suppose that I have a lot of bandwidth un-utilized... that most of these sites are not getting that many hits regularly... that these sites consume about 100 MB or even less a month on average. Also let us assume that most of these sites are simple HTML pages with a little client-side scripting... ie. extremely little server-side usage. So that means really under-utilized CPU and RAM resources, am I correct? I also retain, as you suggested, about 10% of my disk unutilized for server efficiency. In this scenario, if all my sites were 20 MB packages, couldn't I host many more sites? would there be any technical issues/restrictions preventing me from hosting many more small sites on this same server? The math is like this: 10% free of 9.6 GB disk = 8.6 GB available for use. Suppose 2 GB is used for software installations. That means 8.6 GB - 2 GB = 6.6 GB space available for hosting. Divide 6.6 GB / 20 MB packages = 337 different sites hosted. Learner [Edited by Learner on 09-21-2000 at 03:24 AM]
Posted by kunal, 09-21-2000, 09:31 AM
Nopes. You could host how many ever you wont!
Posted by GordonH, 09-21-2000, 11:16 AM
I think Alabanza limit you to 500 ip's / control panels per machine. They provide this for 400 dollars a month for the first year (excluding additional bandwidth). Its easy to see that you could make that break even with not many clients. However, you might want to limit your initial outlay by reselling for someone until you had enough clients to make the switch to your own box. Although, how easy that would be would depend on who you were reselling for. Gordon
Posted by Learner, 09-21-2000, 01:57 PM
Kunal ... So according to what you said, I could technically have even many more sites hosted on the above server under the above circumstances, right? Let us have some more insight on this question if we stretch it to an extreme perhaps: I see that there are some web hosting companies out there primarily pushing packages which comprise of just 5 MB or 10 MB space. So obviously they don't have much choice of many other larger sized packages hosted on their server, right? Okay, now let's stretch the same circumstances to an extreme... Here is the new scenario: Suppose one was to offer only very small packages comprising of just 5 MB space with 1 POP email box (with very few extra features). And suppose these packages are sold with a 100 MB bandwidth allowance free, with very reasonable charges if this bandwidth was exceeded charged in units of 100 MB. That means the math will now look like this: 10% free of 9.6 GB disk = 8.6 GB available for use. Suppose 2 GB is used for software installations. That means 8.6 GB - 2 GB = 6.6 GB space available for hosting. Divide 6.6 GB / 5 MB packages = 1,348 different sites hosted. Assuming that each of these site uses less than 100 MB a month in bandwidth, we get 100 MB X 1,348 sites = 130 GB Fair enough... 130 GB - 50 GB given free by the dedicated server company = 80 GB. What would this extra bandwidth cost? 80 GB X $5 per GB = $400 as an additional bandwidth expense. If the host is billing for extra bandwidth consumed in small units of 100 MB, that would mean that each 100 MB unit of bandwidth would just cost the client a very affordable 50 cents. Furthermore, lets us assume that a Dynamic I.P. addressing system is in use here. Also, client's pay for one whole year of hosting in advance, with an additional refundable deposit to be paid in advance at the time of buying package (as security for the possibility of excess bandwidth possibly being consumed). We can also assume that a control panel isn't offered in this scenario. Or if it is, it would be a simple custom-built control panel. So dear Gods and Gurus and Wannabes... Is such a project technically possible under the circumstances? Go on... please punch holes in this scenario... or tell me that this is feasible. If this post amuses you have your laugh too... but please don't laugh alone!!!! Post your laughter here!!! or Post your cynicism here!!! ... Or post a YES or a NO with brief reasons. Learner [Edited by Learner on 09-21-2000 at 02:02 PM]
Posted by GordonH, 09-21-2000, 02:10 PM
This is *exactly* what one hosting company I know does. They have one server with several thousand 100MB sites and single pop accounts on a single server with one IP address. The idea is that people can use the web space for forwarding or just the core of their pages with the rest on free or other hosts. However, I don't think Alabanza would allow that. they always seem quite strict about 1 IP per site. Gordon
Posted by kunal, 09-21-2000, 02:14 PM
Thereotically [hope i spelt it correctly ] the above scenario is possible.
Posted by Learner, 09-21-2000, 02:19 PM
Thanks Gordon for your two replies. Could you post the URL of this hosting company here OR perhaps email it to me otherwise? Regarding your first post about Alabanza's limitation of 500 IPs/CPs per machine, yes... I am now aware of that. But doesn't Alabanza also sell more IPs & CPs beyond 500? I am told they do. Regarding the Dynamic I.P. addressing system I mentioned in my last post above, the system needn't be based on 1 single I.P. alone, right? We could use more than one I.P. for a Dynamic I.P. addressing system, am I not correct? Learner [Edited by Learner on 09-21-2000 at 02:24 PM]
Posted by Learner, 09-21-2000, 02:49 PM
Now tell me, guys... is this "Practically" possible or not? And if so, are there any technical or financial issues one would need to keep in mind? PING: Annette... BC... Cbaker17... CFoxHost... Chicken... Coreace... Dana... DanielP... Duster... Felix... Fibroptikl... FlashTechnics... Jaguar... JTY... Martie... MikeA... ODE... Rietta... SarasotaWeb... Speedie... SysAdmin... Tabernack... Tk... Vincent... Please do take some time out to poke or plug any holes in this one!!! Learner
Posted by CFoxHost, 09-21-2000, 03:48 PM
Do you mean static IP's? I do not know how you would run Dynamic IP's for hosting on an Alabanza server. If you do mean one IP per site, you may want to read this page before continuing on this course. http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html Besides this new ARIN policy forcing shared IP's, it appears you want to cut every expense possible. Why not save the $ for IP's and go name based anyway? Just make sure any control panel and management software you program is very efficient with all those sites! Otherwise, it seems possible to me. But I also admit I've never tried it
Posted by GordonH, 09-21-2000, 04:03 PM
I can tell you a few companies that do it. Hostsave.com is an obvious one. The one I was thinking about was http://www.10quid.co.uk/ They had a routing problem recently and none of their sites was available across one of the big networks here. I helped find out where the problem was. It was during this that they let slip how many domains they have hosted on this server. Its part of a bigger company called Cyberstrider.net. Gordon
Posted by BC, 09-21-2000, 07:03 PM
LOL @ Learner! Actually, I believe such a scenario is quite possible. I know of one company that has done it (quite successfully) so far - check out Portland Communications at http://www.portland.co.uk - they actually do it for free, so if they can do it for free, presumably you can do it for money!
Posted by Chicken, 09-21-2000, 07:39 PM
Yep, free hosts do this. Thousands of sites per server. Sorry, I am still ill and have a huge headache. I doubt this answers your question fully. I thought there was a limitation (due to apache???) of how many sites could be packed on. Think it was something that could be altered. Really the headache makes me not want to think... *cringes*
Posted by kunal, 09-22-2000, 01:40 AM
Well, Alabanza has started charging 1$/ip. Anyways, such a thing can be done using just 1ip for any no. of sites. It is practically possible and is very similar task to a virtual hosts per ip setup. Apache does not have any restrictions on the no. of sites one can host on one apache deamon.
Posted by Learner, 09-22-2000, 10:11 AM
Actually I was referring to many domains being shared on one (or a few) IPs... "name based" as you correctly mentioned in the latter part of your post. Thanks for the link, CFoxHost. Seriously speaking, YES... that is the primary idea. I am also waiting for the other expert Gods, Gurus & Evals to shed their views on this query of mine. Is there anything I have forgotten to take into account here. I know this would perhaps require some sort of automated billing system in place. Learner
Posted by rayzine, 09-25-2000, 01:45 AM
Is that TRUE? Then how many static IP come with the package. As I know that 1st year fee is $400 per month with 500 static IP. If Alabanza start to charge 1$/ip, how many static IP come with the package is FREE?
Posted by kunal, 09-25-2000, 08:10 AM
Well Alabanza made some changes, and they give you only 35ip's. Also, they charge 1$ for every ip after that. And there cheapest package, which was 400$ has been changed to 875$/mth
Posted by Félix C.Courtemanche, 09-25-2000, 11:01 AM
Learner, for serving static content only (i.e. web pages containing pictures and text only) with no PHP, SSI or CGI this is possible. However, if you start offering CGI, you will _greatly_ reduce the maximum number of hosted sites unless you were on some monster server. Else, I don't think there are any number limit with apache / proFTPd / linux for the number you mentionned. Of course, make sure your server is perfectly optimized first, not running anything not essential, etc. You don't want to waste precious ram & cpu running useless databases, services, etc. Enjoy
Posted by stron, 09-26-2000, 02:31 AM
Kunal, I think Alabanza charges $1 mo for each Control Panel excess of 35. Are you sure it is for IP addresses? I guess CP. TheWingThing.
Posted by diyoha, 09-26-2000, 07:23 PM
The charge is for the CP's not the IP's In one the the ALABANZA threads the CEO explains the pricing later David
Posted by kunal, 09-27-2000, 12:52 AM
I sit corrected

Add to Favourites Print this Article