Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- From: "POP" <iknowyouwant@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:02:48 +0100
Hi Brian, cool comments... keep up the good work... ;-)
"Brian Cryer" <brianc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:OP86xOOfHHA.4636@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"POP" <iknowyouwant@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:C0499B4E-B64B-426D-90AE-E171195B354B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNo No No... NO!
Do not host your website on your SBS Server...
A valid opinion. I agree with the risks and its good (VERY GOOD) to highlight them.
1. The capabilities to host a website are there due to the components on the SBS box. THis doesn't mean it is recommended.
Agreed. (See point 4 below.) I'd always recommend a separate machine (preferably on a separate network if possible).
2. Don't have it inhouse, unless you have 00,000's setup.
or a couple :)
3. Leave to the experts, they have many funds invested and the resources.
Of the websites I'm responsible for, I've only had problems with ones externally hosted (my response was to switch hosts). That said, I know what I'm doing, but for bandwidth reasons I only host internally sites that don't receive much traffic. I also don't host on SBS, I use a separate server - primarily because of your next point ...
4. Dont forget, your corporate data is on the SBS, if that server gets comprimised then so does your data.
YES, YES, YES. This one can't be stressed enough. If anything, its worse than that, since if your SBS is compromised then it can also lead to all the pcs in your company being compromised.
5. Security, do you have the resources to test updates on your 'mirrored' server. Are you able to monitor 24 / 7 for its security alerts on all 65555 doors ? Could you have ensured your server was patched against viruses i.e sql slammer virus
But don't assume that if you go externally that any of this will be provided by your host.
I assume that by "65555 doors" you mean 65535 ports? (I have a feeling the actual figure may be 65534 since I think port 0 isn't valid.)
Testing updates is a very good point. I've twice had PCs taken down by Microsoft Update. One updated the display driver causing it to fail, the other repeatedly crashed after an update. The thing is that unless you have an identical server set-up then its realistically impossible to do a proper test. So, put another way, when the server fails (and it will eventually - hardware or software) if you are doing your own hosting how quickly could you respond and fix it? Even if you host externally always keep a complete backup of the site (plus databases) because you shouldn't rely on the hosting company. (I had an experience last year where the hosting company I was using was hacked, website lost, and their backups turned out to be corrupt - peeving for me, but fortunatly I had a complete backup.) So far I've not had Microsoft Update cause a problem on any of my servers - although its annoying when it causes a reboot.
I had an interesting discussion a while back with someone the subject of anti-virus on the server. In theory if the server is behind a firewall and you only run approved software then you shouldn't need any anti-virus. In practise, yes, I'd always advise anti-virus, its another layer of protection incase of firewall, network or people failings.
6. You get 1000 - 2000 hits, that takes some bandwidth, what you dont see is all the attacks cos port 80 is open. Would your equipment handle 00,000's hits?
1000-2000 hits per month is insignificant. Assuming 2000 hits at say 80kb per hit transfer (probably a bit high), gives 160MB/month, or 5MB/day. Lets say its spread evenly evenly over 4 weeks of 5 working days, so 8MB/day. If that all hits in a single hour then you'd need only 23kbps upload. Distribute it more evenly across the day and the upload requirements fall further (2kbps/hour across 8 working hours). Yes it takes some bandwidth, but it really is insignificant.
Of course the trouble with doing the maths is that it hides peaks, and there will be peaks. Arguably there are only peaks and no averages. You can host with 256kbps upload, but 512 or 1024kbps (or more) is better. A good hosting company should be able to offer 2048kbps or more.
Another thing to note is that the number of hits you get is probably higher than you think. If you are relying on stats provided by your current host they probably exclude hits from search engines and most hits from hackers.
Hosting a basic website attracts some attention, having a business website with online transactions attracts much more attention.
Very very true. More attention than you might think. If you are already connected to the web then you can be sure that you have already been portscanned at the very least. It always amazes me what I find in my server logs, which is a good reason to minimise what other software is running on the web-server.
Dont Do it...
Sorry for all the negative but really believe me, you do not want to host your own website internally, leave it to the experts.
The risks are real. I would be wrong to downplay them, and they should be stressed.
Of couse if you have the ability then there is nothing from stopping you from becoming an expert. Its not as difficult as some would make out. Appreciate the risks, they are very real. Minimise them, using an offsite host is a good way to minimise them, but its not the only way.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
.
- References:
- Using SBS2003 to host website
- From: Anthony Smith
- Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- From: Brian Cryer
- Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- From: Anthony Smith
- Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- From: POP
- Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- From: Brian Cryer
- Using SBS2003 to host website
- Prev by Date: RE: problem with remote work place and laptop
- Next by Date: RE: web server
- Previous by thread: Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- Next by thread: Re: Using SBS2003 to host website
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
