A Toast To The Host That Can Boast The Most Roast
April 21, 2009 6:48 PM Subscribe
Is it cheaper to host my own site even if it means leaving my computer running 24/7?
My ISP recently started offering static IP addresses for $5.95/mo, which would allow me to host my own Java/Tomcat site. Since it's nigh on impossible to find Java hosting that is both decent and inexpensive and allows me full access and control, this seems like a no-brainer. I realize there are a few variables involved here, but generally speaking, would the cost of leaving my PC on 24/7 negate the savings of hosting my own site?
My ISP recently started offering static IP addresses for $5.95/mo, which would allow me to host my own Java/Tomcat site. Since it's nigh on impossible to find Java hosting that is both decent and inexpensive and allows me full access and control, this seems like a no-brainer. I realize there are a few variables involved here, but generally speaking, would the cost of leaving my PC on 24/7 negate the savings of hosting my own site?
Let's say your computer uses 200 watts, or 0.2 kilowatts. You'll be using 4.8 kilowatt-hours per day (24 x 0.2) or 148.8 kilowatt-hours in a 31-day month. At 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $14.88 per month. So yeah, the electric bill isn't going to run you $50 a month unless you have either a monster computer or very high electricity rates.
posted by FishBike at 7:00 PM on April 21, 2009
posted by FishBike at 7:00 PM on April 21, 2009
One of the biggest expense associated with running your own server is the amortized cost of buying the server itself. When you get your hosting somewhere else, that's folded into your monthly fee. When you run your own, you have to front all that money.
How much it is depends on what you need. These days you can get a pretty damned good blade server for $700, but that's still quite a lot of money. If you run it for 4 years, that amortizes to $14.60 per month.
There are good reasons to run your own server. But saving money isn't really one of them.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:05 PM on April 21, 2009
How much it is depends on what you need. These days you can get a pretty damned good blade server for $700, but that's still quite a lot of money. If you run it for 4 years, that amortizes to $14.60 per month.
There are good reasons to run your own server. But saving money isn't really one of them.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:05 PM on April 21, 2009
Let's say your computer uses 200 watts...
I have three computers running right now, according to the UPS the total load is 190W. Two quad core Intel, one dual core Intel, total of 6 hard drives among them (i.e. not weak machines). The load goes up if you hammer the CPU, but hosting a small website most likely wouldn't.
You can measure your own CPU power usage with one of those "kill a watt" things, perhaps mine are atypical.
posted by knave at 7:24 PM on April 21, 2009
I have three computers running right now, according to the UPS the total load is 190W. Two quad core Intel, one dual core Intel, total of 6 hard drives among them (i.e. not weak machines). The load goes up if you hammer the CPU, but hosting a small website most likely wouldn't.
You can measure your own CPU power usage with one of those "kill a watt" things, perhaps mine are atypical.
posted by knave at 7:24 PM on April 21, 2009
You are talking about a single desktop pc? Depends if something like constant 24/7 uptime is important to you - in a DR situation for example (power outage, comms outage to the region your PC is in), and also patching and rebooting if you just have one PC.
posted by Admira at 8:13 PM on April 21, 2009
posted by Admira at 8:13 PM on April 21, 2009
The real downside is that your residential plan will give you something with a nice download and a terrible upload. I hate it when developers host stuff on their personal machines with a 128-256kb/sec uplink. I hope youre not expecting more than one person at a time to use it.
Hosting and colo gives you better bandwidth options.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:42 PM on April 21, 2009
Hosting and colo gives you better bandwidth options.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:42 PM on April 21, 2009
You're neglecting bandwidth & QOS. Bandwidth-wise, your home connection sends out data slower (meaning slower page loads), will probably have outages that you weren't previously aware of, & could break your browsing & streaming media.
Offloading static files to S3 & setting up traffic rules on your router would help with the first & third problems.
On preview, seconding what damn dirty ape said.
posted by Pronoiac at 9:47 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Offloading static files to S3 & setting up traffic rules on your router would help with the first & third problems.
On preview, seconding what damn dirty ape said.
posted by Pronoiac at 9:47 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Don't forget that dedicated hosting also has (should have) a guaranteed uptime, which your local consumer ISP will not match. You don't specify if this is for business or for casual type use. If the latter, sure, no big deal.
Also, if you use a provider like dyndns, you can have your domain pointed to a dynamic ip (your router can tell dyndns your current ip address) and save yourself the money for the static ip.
If you want to save more power, you can even run your whole site off a flash drive or similar, and have the hard drive powered down most of the time.
I've run my personal site from a home box for years without any big problems, my limited upload speed made browsing pictures not super fast, but it was fine for friends and family.
posted by defcom1 at 10:11 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, if you use a provider like dyndns, you can have your domain pointed to a dynamic ip (your router can tell dyndns your current ip address) and save yourself the money for the static ip.
If you want to save more power, you can even run your whole site off a flash drive or similar, and have the hard drive powered down most of the time.
I've run my personal site from a home box for years without any big problems, my limited upload speed made browsing pictures not super fast, but it was fine for friends and family.
posted by defcom1 at 10:11 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
How much memory do you need that you need to spend $50/month? For $30/month you can get a Linux virtual server with 540MB of memory, of which ~400MB should be available for your app.
For $15/month, Webfaction has shared hosting with the flexibility of using 160MB of memory for long running processes.
Beyond that though, web traffic tends to be bursty, in web hosting, you can probably burst out at 50-100Mbps, on most home connections in the US, you'd be lucky to push 5Mbps.
posted by Good Brain at 11:10 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
For $15/month, Webfaction has shared hosting with the flexibility of using 160MB of memory for long running processes.
Beyond that though, web traffic tends to be bursty, in web hosting, you can probably burst out at 50-100Mbps, on most home connections in the US, you'd be lucky to push 5Mbps.
posted by Good Brain at 11:10 PM on April 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Check the terms of use of your ISP. A majority of them explicitly prevent you from running a web server and can yank your service if they feel cranky. (Or worse, just start billing you for the much more expensive service that does allow you to run a web server.)
Which is of course a bit of a bait and switch since there's very little point in having a static IP unless you're serving something.
posted by Ookseer at 1:44 AM on April 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Which is of course a bit of a bait and switch since there's very little point in having a static IP unless you're serving something.
posted by Ookseer at 1:44 AM on April 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
yalestar - you're hitting the "favorite this" link instead of "mark as best answer," by the way.
posted by Pronoiac at 3:36 PM on April 22, 2009
posted by Pronoiac at 3:36 PM on April 22, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by yalestar at 6:50 PM on April 21, 2009