Setting up my own server: Bandwidth considerations

Hi guys!

I'm considering setting up my own web-server at home, instead
of signing up with a shared hosting plan. I'll be using a 2GB desktop
computer, with a not too old processor; (perhaps I'll even set up a
software RAID as well). I'm already a Linux user, and I already have
a a computer with a server distribution that I use for training,
so I think I'll be able to handle the technical aspect of this.
(Security, etc.)

I'll use the server to host a site where I'll post my own articles for
download as e-pub/PDFs.
The site will probably grow slowly but steadily, and the only thing I
need to figure out is how much traffic I can get before my internet
connection becomes a bottleneck.
The upload is 4 Mbps with no traffic restrictions, and I think that
setting up my own server would be okay with my ISP, though I'll ask first.

How much traffic can you get (GB/monthly) before 4 Mbps becomes
a too puny connection?

 

That should not be a good idea to run homemade server for pro sites, now-a-days you even get a good shared hosting at less than 15$ per year. So why you are going to make it complicated?

 

It'll be sort of my homepage, no e-commerce, just static html... Besides the learning experience of running your own server, I can see several advantages over going for shared hosting (paid or free).

You don't have to worry about fly-by-night hosts that suddenly shuts down; or hosts that take your site down without warning because it draws too much traffic. Instead of having shared hosting with limited traffic, I'll get my own dedicated server.

Since I've already got a box, my only concern is whether my fibre connection is good enough.

So... 4Mbps, what do you think guys? Will it do?

 

Not much. Theoretically, 4mpbs can transfer just over 1200GB per month at full utilization 24/7. A more "normal" traffic pattern wold give you around 800GB. You'll also be on a contented line of something like 1/20, so that would (theoretically) provide 40GB, but it you upload that much data you will probably gain the attention of your ISP - and they might shut you down...just like the shared hosts you fear will do.

4mbps is not a big connection. It's not just about how much data can be transferred, but what the peak available bandwidth is, and on a 1/20 contented line that could be as little as 200kbps, and your visitors aren't going to be able to download very many e-pub/pdfs with that bandwidth. A shared hosting plan would be more satisfactory.

On a more positive note, we have a remote office far from the nearest exchange that operates Exchange server and sharepoint. It has a 2mbps ADSL line (about 384kbps upload) on a 1/5 contention. It works fine for connections to Outlook Web Access and getting the occasional bit of data from sharepoint although I wouldn't want to run access for anyone else but our own staff. This ADSL line does have it's own fixed IP addresses (a tiny /29) and our ISP does allow us to operate servers on that line. So, it can be done, just don't expect great performance or be able to deal with lots of visitors.....and make sure your ISP allows it.

 

Thank you so much for your kind reply!

I need a little explanation... What does a “contended line” mean? I'm not familiar with the terminology... Regarding peak traffic, I've never experienced that the line has slowed down, in any way. I think there's probably an overcapacity on the lines, (this is a rural area with few inhabitants and we do have fibre broadband. Government subsidies, say no more ) But I realize I will have to have a chat with my ISP before I decide upon anything. And please feel free to elaborate a bit on this; these are the kind of objections that I need to hear about.

I agree that 4Mbps isn't that much, but on the other hand 800GB a month is a quite good deal. If you sign up with a web-host you'll have to pay quite a bit for 800GB of traffic. (Unless you sign up Hosts that oversell.) But realistically I hear that a new site will typically draw, say, 1GB of traffic a month. And, if the site takes completely off, I do have the opportunity of upgrading the connection to 8Mbps or 20/10 Mbps.

Regards,
Brown Crow

 

No problem

It's the number of people who will share the same port at the telephone exchange. So, with 1/20 contention, 20 other people will be sharing the capacity of that line/port.

Servers in a datacentre are mostly contented too. For example, a 24-port switch, with 2 ports for trunking, will allow 22 servers to connect. This is something like a 22/1 contention ratio. There's slightly more to it than that in datacentres, because trunks might have more bandwidth on the trunks, quality of service plays a part, and not all servers will necessarily have the same port speed...but you get the idea.

The contention ratio goes all the way up the line. That's why your connections can get slower at certain times of the day because more people are connecting at the same time and using up the spare capacity on the shared line.

This is also called overselling, but some people think it's a bad thing, but its everywhere you look.

That probably works in your favour then.

Now I'm completely jealous.

Many ISPs don't like you running servers on their connections. That's because the overselling of capacity and the fact that when you run a server you are likely to be a high user. It would also be better if you could get fixed IP addresses from them, and you'll also need a router that allows you to accept incoming connections and one which you can configure...even if the configuration is simple.

These are just theoretical limits and traffic. It could be more, but it's likely to be much less, and I can guarantee that if you reach anything like 800GB on upload then your ISP will not be happy.

Don't get too hung up on overselling because it is everywhere. It the extent to which it happens, and the consequencies to those who use more resources than average. There's much more important things to consider when selecting a host.

That's true, and if you don't expect much traffic to begin with then it might work.

Where the differences will like between DIY and a datacentre - apart from the connection - will be

1. Servers are designed for 24/7 operation. Desktop hardware isn't
2. Datacentres have redundancy in their network, you won't
3. Datacenters have redudancy in their power networks, plus UPS and generators
4. Datacentres have multiple carriers for reliability often using multiple routes into a building. You have a single point with many single-points of failure
5. You've got to do it all yourself. A shared host has it all set-up for you.
6. Security is an important issue. We have firewalls in our offices and since we have a fixed IP they are constantly dealing with port scans and people attempting to get in. You'll have the same problems too, just make sure your router is up to it.

But, if you're happy to give it a go, why not? Just don't expect huge performance, and be aware of the pitfalls that wouldn't exist in a datacentre.

Good luck!

 

Thanks for your answers!

My initial idea is to host my own site as a stepping stone. If it draws a lot of traffic and becomes extremely popular, I realise that a DIY server might be too weak. On the other hand, internet superstars aren't born instantaneously, most web-pages have a modest beginning. Obviously I think that my stuff is interesting, but I expect traffic to catch up gradually. Or to be more precise; I really haven't got a clue about how much traffic to expect .

They do offer static IP for the equivalent of 18$ a month, but I probably won't use it. First of all I've noticed that my IP hasn't changed at all since I've first checked, and secondly signing up with DynDNS is much cheaper + I get a domain name with them.

From what I hear overselling is a problem both among paid as well as with
free hosts. Usually this is why they go down. They promise more resources
than they have, and when customers start using their share, the host don't
manage to pay their bills, and they disappear... I don't think all hosts out
there oversell, but I know it is a problem because I've had contact with people
that have experienced hosts that go down, or that cancel your account for no
reason at all.

I get your point about the ISP; I'll have a chat with them before I decide
upon anything.

My router supports functions like port forwarding, virtual server, access control, hacker attack detection (including fending off DOS-attacks and port scans) and it also allows me to set up a demilitarized zone.

Still I must admit that I haven't yet looked too much into this router thingy... How can you specifically find out whether your router is up to the task? Any advice?
(I know that there is a Linux distro called IP-cop that allows you to turn a computer into a firewall, but I'd rather not have yet another computer turned on 24/7.)

Good points! Of course there are many things that can go wrong. When it comes to the hardware aspect, I've heard that the hard-drive is the component that most
often fail, so I'll probably invest in two HDDs that I'll set up as a RAID1 array, or I might get a SSD drive.

I do also have a couple of backup solutions:
a) A free host. If my server for some reason go down, I'll be able to have a stripped mirror of my site (without downloads), or at least post some kind of notice about what's happened.
b) Alternatively I'll use another desktop as a temporary server.)
c) And maybe getting an UPS isn't a bad idea to begin with.
But you're right that DIY will never get as good as at a datacentre.

Otherwise looking into server hardening, security is an issue
that I take seriously.

Finally: I haven't made a final decision about this, so I'm still open to more objections...

Greetings from
Brown Crow

 

I've just had a chat with my ISP.

They were very positive, I can do whatever I like with my line as long as I don't break any laws. Regarding peak traffic, they said that since I have fibre, they guarantee that 4Mbps is what I get, even during peak.

Explanation:
I don't live the US; as I wrote earlier, we live in a rural area with few inhabitants and good government sponsored connections. I might give it a try!

 

a better option would be using an epublishing platform say like raspee or scribd and embed your documents in the website you will using that way you will say your bandwith

 

Wouldn't that be considered piggybacking (bandwidth theft)?

 

the sites give an option i guess its a service they provide atleast raspee directly gives an embed code directly

 

Well, in that case it's something I'll consider! Thanks for the tip!

 

After setting up your owned server, update us for sure What sorts of server going to set? Linux/Win and your ISP also give you 1 real IP right? Also check your ping from other location, I want to see.

 

Of course I'll be using Linux. I haven't decided upon which distro I'll use,
but probably it'll be Ubuntu or OpenBSD.

--

pingtest[dot]net:

Within my own country:
Server a) 26 ms.
Server b) 56 ms.
Server c) 23 ms
Server d) 28 ms
Server e) 32ms

Europe:
Denmark: 32 ms
Russia: 54 ms.
UK: 55 ms.
Netherlands: 69 ms
Germany: 66 ms
Rome, Italy: 85 ms.
Spain: 125 ms

US:
Washington DC: 128 ms
Austin, Texas: 166
San Francisco, California: 292ms

Canada:
Toronto: 156 ms
Edmonton: 209 ms

Brazil:
Rio: 272 ms

Asia:
Seol, South Korea: 382ms

New Zealand:
New Plymouth: 347 ms


Now, what do you make of this?

 

That you live in Norway - maybe Sweden!

Good luck with your set-up. Be interested to see it in action.

 

Ha ha, so you're sure I don't live in Finland then?

But what does a latency of 128-292 ms (US) mean in practice?
Would my site be slow if you were to access it from the US?

 

No, not absolutely sure, but I was thinking in terms of backbones. You're obviously not on the main European backbone given the pings to Netherlands and Germany, so while you're in Europe you're not in western, central or southern Europe, which leaves Scandinavia. Your pings to Denmark aren't great, so you're not there. Norway and the UK have good links and form the major part of the trans-atlantic backbone and the UK and Russia are about the same distance from Norway, so it was a guess. You could be in Finland, but I'd guess your pings to Russia would either be much faster, or a bit slower (depending upon route), so I'd say you were west of Finland. That leaves Norway (still my favourite) or Sweden, but I could be completely wrong. You can only guess so much from a single set of figures.

It may be twice the speed, but it's only 56ms difference from the rest of Europe. It might be an age for computers, but a human-being is unlikely to be adversely bothered by it. It may seem ever-so-slightly slower to react, but not to a major detriment. If you have a good backbone and ISP with no packet loss that will more than make up for faster but lower-quality connections nearer to the end user.

 

Okay, those numbers didn't mean much to me.
Nice to have that sorted out.

Cheers!

 

interesting, i run freeshell servers at home. I have 3 internet connections at home. 2 of them is running my free shell service. If you are trying this out, i would say go for it. Just take note, 4Mbps might not be your international speed. It could be your country speed. Internationally that might drop down by alot, but if it does not bother you, then just go for it. Maybe you and me can try out providing more free shell and host =P for fun ?

 

In what ways is international speed different from national speed? How do you find out what your international speed is?