Web Hosting

[Knapp]

>  I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I agree...
>
>  I should explain :-)  I live off-grid, so I don't actually have the
>  resources to run a 24/7 server - either electricity or Internet access.

Can't say much about your internet access but even off the grid you
can run a lap top off some batteries and a solar panel! :-) Power
consumption is really low with laptops and you don't need a new fancy
one to run a little server.

>  And while I don't like the idea of anybody running any electrical device
>  24/7 because of the waste of energy, it's quite possible that a person
>  running their own small and well-designed server can do it for less energy
>  waste than some large hosting company (_they_ don't care about the resource
>  use - they're going to bill their customers for it, anyway).
>
>
>  > Maybe a database for fancy websites? Small one is sqlight
>
>  lite, isn't it?  I can't remember how many 'l's.
I can't spell, Here is a link to wiki about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite. Note that it is less that 500K

>  > Maybe you want something fancy for your site? Try Django to make a
>  > fancy website fast (you need to know a bit for this, mostly python).
>
>  Plone.

Why Plone over Django? This is not my area of expertise but I
understood Plone to take more time to learn to use plus knowledge of
Zope on top of python.

>
>
>  > Want something bigger try postgreSQL with apache2 and Django.
>
>  Postgresql is not very big for what you get.  I do a lot of SQL development,
>  and I can't believe the difference between trying to do anything in Oracle
>  and the same in Postgre.

Can you say more about this? What is the difference that you have
seen? I have never used Oracle but I would like to hear about it and
the why of what you are saying.

I am sure there are points at which Postgre
>  becomes too small for the job, but it isn't anything I work with!

I don't know what you would have to be doing to overload PostgreSQL.
On the other side of this, it is nowhere near as light as Sqlite.  Of
course Sqlite does not have the power of PostgreSQL but most user
sites (I would ever say most pro sites) don't need that power and they
do need the memory and CPU time.

>From the Sqlite website, "Website Database. Because it requires no
configuration and stores information in ordinary disk files, SQLite is
a popular choice as the database to back small to medium-sized
websites." Note that they don't say large websites.

Before you need the rest of this, keep in mind that all the tests I
could find on the web were out of date often within the test the
software tested was from different years! We all know how much a
distro can change in a one year! Think about that with some of these
tests between software that is 2 years out of sink!

I thought this was telling and humorous about PostgreSQL vs Oracle.
Note that Oracle was stated to run 15% faster in this test but the
hardware was hard to compare. Price includes hardware and software but
not the team that tuned the test. "So effectively, you can still get
slightly better performance by using Oracle on commodity hardware. You
just pay $120,000 to gain an incremental amount of performance. But
then, you already knew that, didn't you?" SNIP " And it's not enough
for us to be "almost as fast as Oracle", we plan to be faster,
possibly starting with PostgreSQL 8.3 and with the Niagara2."

PG vs new PG
http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/blog/index.php?/archives/21-8.3-vs.-8.2-a-simple-benchmark.html


To sum this all up and state what I see:
Best for complex big system databases in order first being best.
Oracle, PostgreSQL, Mysql, SQlite
Best for simple uses and really high speed uses.
SQlite, Mysql, PostgrSQL, Oracle.

Last note: Oracle is really expansive and needs special hardware and
might not be faster than PostGreSQL now.

>  > Disadvantages are that your site is only on when your computer is
>  > online. Your internet provider might not like it, but in many cases
>  > they don't really care (even if they say they do, your risk) if it is
>  > just you and a few friends hitting the site.
>
>  Yes.  Some ISPs (my satellite provider included) can prevent you getting
>  incoming connections, but the cable providers don't usually, and won't care
>  as long as it isn't a high-bandwidth user or commercial.
>  --
>  derek
>
>
>  --
>  kubuntu-users mailing list
>  kubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
>  Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
>



-- 
Douglas E Knapp
http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page