Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The evolution of DSL lines and technologies such as FTTH has make me wonder if traditional hosting services could be in danger.

If you want to host your own domain, for example for a blog or a simple business page, setting up a webserver (with some interesting options, such as FTP, printing and even email) is each day more affordable and interesting.

In fact, here in Spain we're starting to see FTTH lines with a 50Mbbps/5Mbps download/upload channels, and I think 5 Mbps is in fact a really good bandwidth if users want to access the server and you're not Facebook.

My question is, apart from the technical issues (I guess most readers at SF would know how to set up a webserver and a blog, for example), is there some way to know how much bandwidth can handle this kind of setup with a 5 Mbps upload channel?

How many concurrent users (aided with a good Nginx/PHP-FPM/Varnish/Memcached config, for exxample), and how many unique visitors/day could that server and Internet connection handle?

Update: Sorry, I didn't know that one of the conditions of ServerFault was not talking about "Running servers at home for personal use". Do I delete the post? Where could it be moved to be an appropiate question on the StackExchange network?

share|improve this question
    
FTTP/FTTH is not a DSL technology... DSL involves high frequency radio-like communication over copper telephone lines. FTTP usually uses GE-PON (or similar) technologies, based somewhat on fiber Ethernet. –  Chris S Nov 14 '11 at 18:07
    
Home-based networks are generall on-topic at SuperUser, our sister site. However, running a server at home is Generally A Bad Idea, regardless of connection. –  tombull89 Nov 14 '11 at 18:34
    
Thx, I'll delete this question now. –  javipas Nov 15 '11 at 12:35
add comment

closed as off topic by EEAA, Evan Anderson, Alex, sam, Iain Nov 14 '11 at 15:38

Questions on Server Fault are expected to relate to professional server, networking, or related infrastructure administration within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

How much bandwidth do I need is a lot like what food should I eat. There's a vast range of possible answers based on personal situation, tastes, availability of resources, and so on.

But here's a little concrete data. My colocated server's throughput graphs are publicly available - follow the link - and give you some kind of idea what sort of bandwidth you need for a small server with a few quiet websites, some photo galleries, a fairly busy mail server (10 regular users and about 30 more occasional ones), and it's a member of the NTP pool project.

That could be hosted on the sort of connection you suggest with no bandwidth problems at all. Latency, network availability, immortal power, and cooling issues, however, as ErikA rightly notes, mean it'll be staying in its colo for some time to come, though.

share|improve this answer
    
That's precisely what I was looking for. Some "succcess story" to know if that kind of scenario could be accomplished with this kind of infraestructure. But yes, it's obvious that the range of possibilities here is really big. Your user case would be what I'd call a standard one. –  javipas Nov 14 '11 at 16:02
add comment

The evolution of DSL lines and technologies such as FTTH has make me wonder if traditional hosting services could be in danger.

Absolutely not. There are so many more factors that go into reliable hosting than bandwidth available. Let me know when you get multiple diverse path circuits to several different ISPs, multiple connections to utility power, redundant UPS systems, gensets, transfer switches, and redundant cooling. Only at that point have you even started to deal with things that must be considered for even the cheapest, least reliable server hosting.

share|improve this answer
    
I was thinking as a "home webserver", not trying to substitute the features a professional hosting service could give to its clients. But for a modest blog, a photo gallery and a "normal" mail server, that should be fine in my opinion. Thanks ErikA! –  javipas Nov 14 '11 at 16:00
add comment

First, we don't normally do "home network" issues here. You might get the question closed or migrated off ServerFault.

Second, FTP is a bad idea. Always. It's cleartext. Easily intercepted.

Third, how many concurrent users your site can handle is entirely subjective on your site. Are you just text only? Enough memory to cache everything? Are you streaming some video, transferring a number of files, static content vs. dynamic, database back end, are you doing things that share your home connection, etc.? So no, there's no way to tell you that estimate, you'd have to do practical real-world testing.

Fourth, actual hosts are NOT in danger because people setting things up in their homes generally don't have redundant network connections, connections to top tier bandwidth, they usually don't have UPS's set up or hardware redundancy or switches meant to handle high network loads etc. etc. etc. It's like saying that the auto industry is in trouble because you discovered that motorcycles are a lot cheaper to maintain and work just as well for you as a car would. In some cases...sure. You can host a little blog or small service from home. And it would work fine for you. For a business that actually needs high service availability, redundancy, backups, etc. running it from a system in your bedroom closet is not a good idea.

share|improve this answer
    
Sorry on the FTP side. I guess I meant SFTP/SSH. And as I've told to ErikA, I wasn't talking about a "serious" client with certain hosting needs. For a blogger, paying 10-20 dollars/month could be not worthy if they can have this kind of services running on their own resources. If they want to, of course. Thanks! –  javipas Nov 14 '11 at 16:04
    
There are free blogging services too, like Blogger. –  Bart Silverstrim Nov 14 '11 at 16:56
    
Yep, but again, I was talking a user a little bit more experienced who wants something hosted on his own server. –  javipas Nov 14 '11 at 17:41
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.