8
Ability to manage multiple websites
under review
A
Arni from Webdock
Although we highly discourage using a VPS for shared hosting we are under the impression that this is a feature many users are missing from Webdock. Please cast your vote here and chime in if you have seen good examples on how to manage multiple websites out there in other control panels which can serve as inspiration to our team on how we would implement this.
Log In
Activity Feed
Sort by
A
Arni from Webdock
E
Epsilon PS _ Paul Schiffer
I, for my part, am glad that Webdock takes the approach to explicitly discourage shared hosting since multiple websites on one server is a major availability and security problem I see in the whole WWW. And since we have such small footprint VPS options here with Webdock, it isn't a huge financial hit to provision multiple servers, even more so once we can run scripts for Ansible or other provisioning systems after deploy to streamline multiple servers.
However I can understand why we are even talking about this:
- Does Webdock as a company swim against the tide and won't offer shared hosting for the reason of availability and security, and because of that, loose a few potential customers but shape and strengthen a good image about best practice WWW?
- Or does Webdock want more customers for increased profit and better cashflow for more amazing features but follow suit like almost all other providers and depreciate the one-website-per-server approach?
When talking about other instances of this problem, like multiple apps on one server in a datacenter, I will also always go for the strict implementation of one app per server, with the knowledge that I have increased OS overhead, when running Windows.
A
Arni from Webdock
Epsilon PS _ Paul Schiffer: You've absolutely hit the nail on the head here. We really have it as a foundational philosphy that shared hosting is a terrible idea. At the same time, we realize we are a low cost provider which does attract a certain segment of VPS consumers, who are a lot of the time looking to save money and are thereby rather skewed towards wanting to do shared hosting.
Which is ironic, because the whole point of having such affordable VPS servers in the first place was to encourage people to NOT do shared hosting.
We are still in the "we should probably not do this" camp - but there is a lot of push from customers on our support channel to implement this and at the same time we have an awful lot of users who install 3rd party control panels for this purpose (and are paying for them) such as runcloud, cpanel etc.
So yeah ... This is a tough one - do we want to stick to our beleifs or do we want to cater to the users we are onboarding a lot of....
E
Epsilon PS _ Paul Schiffer
Arni from Webdock: Would you want to partner with 3rd party control panels to offer them for install on deploy? That has to be a paid add-on to not increase the base price of the server.
Does the profit from winning these additional customers outweigh the implementation effort?
If you make it "unnecessarily" hard and still discourage the users that want to do shared hosting from doing it, but let them decide for themselves, then I can understand it as a necessary evil to grow and have cash flow available for other important features.
A
Arni from Webdock
Epsilon PS _ Paul Schiffer: When we completed our API we reached out to a number of 3rd party control panels in order to see if they wanted to cooperate. We were uniformly ignored. They simply don't see us as big/important enough to even bother talking to.
So we have parked that idea until we have a larger presence in the market at which point I suspect they may come to us.
E
Epsilon PS _ Paul Schiffer
Arni from Webdock: I feared that this would have happened. Big companies nowadays have their noses too high in the wind to care about small projects anymore, its really sad to see. They should remember from time to time where they came from...
A
Arni from Webdock
under review