[WebR] How shall the site be hosted?

[Zuu]

[WebR]: This thread is a research thread for the website team. Everyone are allowed to comment as long as you stay on topic and motivate you're arguments.

Question: How shall the site be hosted?

Answers: Plese stay on topic, and motivate your arguments.

----

One of the first things we have to decide is wheter we'll have database-acces available, and which server-side scripting languages are available.

The question is not really "what do we want", but "what is available (wherever the site is hosted)" ?

----

Personal part of this post:

What are the options?

• SF.net, project web services (php, mysql, cgi, 100MB soft qouta)
• Somebody in the team host it.
• Somebody on tt-forums host it.
• We get a sponsor to host it.

Database Service: Each project hosted on SourceForge.net may opt-in for a MySQL database. Your project database may be used for software testing (provided it is not resource-intensive), or in managing project web content (i.e. as a backend for a content management system). Project databases may be managed by project administrators.

[Steve]

* SF.net, project web services (php, mysql, cgi, 100MB soft qouta)

I have a feeling SF will be restrictive, mainly in speed but also in other areas. I know Chris had some troubles with some kind of backup a while ago.

* Somebody in the team host it.

I think this is the best option.

* Somebody on tt-forums host it.

If they are not in the team, they will be less reliable and our site may be a lower priority than their other projects.

* We get a sponsor to host it.

Not sure who would sponser us, but i'm pretty confident that adverts (such as googles) will be enough to support a server initially and for a great time afterwards. It would only be when we need to let people download actual copies of the game that we'd need more server bandwidth and such and sponsers would be required.

[Grunt]

We are most likely going to want a database system (MySQL, most likely?) of some sort unless the site is going to be entirely static (which, with a quick check of neighbouring threads, does not seem likely to happen). If we can get this with one of us hosting things, great. If not, SF ought to be able to handle the (minimal?) site load we are going to have until such time as we actually have a major workable product to show off to everyone and demand for the website spikes.

[Zuu]

It would only be when we need to let people download actual copies of the game that we'd need more server bandwidth and such and sponsers would be required.

for official releases source and binaries we can use SF.net and its file release system, which is quite good, with fast mirrors.


Remember that their site hosting services uses its own set of servers. (5 p3 700 Mhz or so, last time I checked.)

[Arathorn]

And with clever use of Bittorent/ed2k we can ease the load.

[jfs]

It's quite possible to make a very dynamic site without having a real database, and as long as it isn't being updated, it might even be faster, since that approach also supports generated, static pages well. Let me humbly point to my personal website (WWW button at the bottom of this post) for an example of a somewhat dynamic site not using any database. Another example of that approach is the Shiichan BBS system.
I believe we won't need a database for out site, so we don't need to look for that in a host.

In general, webhosting can be very cheap now, I know of several companies that offer hosting for less than €2/month, with PHP, MySQL database and 100 MB space, free bandwidth (within reasonable limits). Only drawback is that they might not be as reliable as more expensive hosts, but avaliability should still be very good.

[orudge]

I can of course provide free, fairly reliable hosting for the project, with more or less anything you would require. (I could also provide Subversion hosting if you don't want to use SourceForge's CVS, although that's not really for this topic). Nightly backups to a remote location are carried out, and PHP, MySQL, and all the trimmings are available, as well as a reasonably unlimited amount of space and bandwidth.

[ChrisCF]

IMO, the question should not be "Where do we host it?" but "Do we have a good enough case to move away from SF?". SF may have its issues, but we shouldn't be making a decision to move from there until we've got both a good enough reason to choose the new host, and a good enough reason to move away from SF.

[Hellfire]

Let me humbly point to my personal website (WWW button at the bottom of this post) for an example of a somewhat dynamic site not using any database.

I don't want to offend you, but given the compatibility discussion in another thread:

De XML-pagina kan niet worden weergegeven

Kan XML-invoer niet lezen met opmaakmodel . Herstel de fout en klik vervolgens op de knop Vernieuwen of probeer het later opnieuw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter-item moet worden gedefinieerd voordat het wordt gebruikt. Fout bij het verwerken van bron http://www.w3.org/TR/xh...

%xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
-^

I assume you don't speak Dutch, so here's a translation:

Cannot display XML-page

Can't read XML-input with markup model. Fix the error and click on the Refresh button or try again later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter-item must be defined before it is used. Error while processing source http://www.w3.org/TR/xh...

%xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
-^

Note that I only use Internet Explorer at work. My PC's at home all have Mozilla or Mozilla Firefox, so I probably will not have this problem there.

[jfs]

Cannot display XML-page

Can't read XML-input with markup model. Fix the error and click on the Refresh button or try again later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter-item must be defined before it is used. Error while processing source http://www.w3.org/TR/xh...

%xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
-^

It's a well-known bug in the MSXML DTD parser:
http://www.w3.org/2002/04/xml_bugs/#bug2
And the most famous example of it surfacing is with the XHTML 1.1 DTD. And that's exactly why we should not use XHTML 1.1.

[Zuu]

IMO, the question should not be "Where do we host it?" but "Do we have a good enough case to move away from SF?". SF may have its issues, but we shouldn't be making a decision to move from there until we've got both a good enough reason to choose the new host, and a good enough reason to move away from SF.

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net

VOTE: Okay, can we agree that we will start on SF.net. First when/if we need something better we'll look for an alternative?

ANSWER: Yes or No (clearly!)
You must include "VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net" in your answer, so that I/we know that you responded to this vote. If you haven't the vote won't be counted.
START: now
CLOSE: 2005-05-26 02:00:00 UTC

[Hyronymus]

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net
Answer: Yes

Can I point out that when it's time to look for something better we re-examine the ideas in this thread instead reinventing the wheel?

[Zuu]

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net
Answer: Yes

Can I point out that when it's time to look for something better we re-examine the ideas in this thread instead reinventing the wheel?

That seams cleaver. Alltroght I can't promise anything.

[Grunt]

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net
Answer: Yes.

[PJayTycy]

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net
Answer: Yes.

[jfs]

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net
Answer: Yes.

[Zuu]

5 out of 5 voted Yes. 0 out of 5 voted No.

VOTE-ID: Host website at SF.net
Result: Yes

voting closed