Great Conversation Starter

[crowsfan85]

What a great conversation starter! I think I should know a bit about this since our church has done both since I've been working there as webmaster.

Here's the plan: I'll compile the responses and create a final list at the end. For now, everybody just add your own pros and cons below.

Here's a very short list of PROS in no particular order. Obviously, the CONS are the antithesis.

PROS:

Development and uploads (especially big files) are done much quicker
If you set up your DNS right, the in-house staff can view the site using the local IP, which is much faster than hopping to the Internet.
You have complete control over the environement (Apache, PHP version, etc)
The assurance that backups are being done, if you're doing them, which of course you should.

[David Gillaspey]

Would a website appear to visitors to be slower when hosted by a church (internally) compared to the same church website hosted by a web hosting company? I can see a church having access to a T1 line to the local phone company, but not to the super high capacity lines connected directly to the internet backbone that dedicated web hosting companies offer.

But maybe it's the speed of the computer upon which a web server is running that really makes the difference.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[crowsfan85]

Yeah, the speed of the church's connection is definitely a factor. Our church currently has a full T1 set up. Right now, we have a completely separate connection from our internal connection, but from what I understand T1's are full duplex and the download speed doesn't affect the upload speed.

So if churches are already using a T1 internally, they could use it for their web server and not see any speed hitch. Somebody with more networking experience please chime in.

I'm sure you'd probably see a bit of an increase with higher capactity lines, but our connection has usually been pretty fast. I think most of the slow speed on websites has less to do with the connection and more to do with the bloated code and images "less experienced" designers use.

I'm really happy having our server in house, and being able to transfer files to it so quickly.

[iamcam]

Our web server is off-site, hosted/administered by a very gracious donor. We're currently on a shared hosting plan, but it appears we will be moved to a virtual hosting system in the future.

I think one of the major benefits for most people of having somebody else take care of your web server is that it is somebody else taking care of the server. That leaves you, the developer, free to develop the site without worrying about software, hardware, or network problems.

[flutem3]

Would a website appear to visitors to be slower when hosted by a church (internally) compared to the same church website hosted by a web hosting company? I can see a church having access to a T1 line to the local phone company, but not to the super high capacity lines connected directly to the internet backbone that dedicated web hosting companies offer.

But maybe it's the speed of the computer upon which a web server is running that really makes the difference.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

:confused: Conversation starters of the world UNITE!!! David and crowsfan85, what are you guys talking about please. I have been lost in the dust. Please find me.

[David Gillaspey]

Sorry, I'll provide a little background.

The conversation starter hinges on the fact that it's perfectly possible to have a computer in your church facility storing your website (by that I mean all the files and, if applicable, the backend database) and serving it to the world. In other words, you can run your own web server rather than pay a company to do it for you.

In simplest terms, all it takes is a fast computer, big enough hard drive, web server software, and a connection to the internet. (Of course, it's actually more complex that.)

The hardware is certainly affordable these days. The web server software can be gotten for free. And the phone company will provide the connection to the internet, for a price.

(Two-thirds of all websites on the internet are hosted on computer using Apache web server software. Apache is free and available
here (http://httpd.apache.org/).)

You can get a link to the internet via a special (usually business-class) phone connection. The "T1" that Nick mentioned is a special phone line that can transmit a LOT of data (more than DSL lines and WAY more than 56K connections).

DSL internet connections are usually asynchronous. That means the download speed is way faster than the upload speed. I'm not sure if there's a technical reason for DSL having to be that way, but I'm pretty sure the phone companies want their DSL service to be asynchronous to discourage people from running their own webservers. (If you run your own webserver, download and upload are equally important.) The "duplex" that Nick mentioned I think simply means that a T1 is synchronous ? upload and download speed is the same.

Fine, so why wouldn't everyone want to run their own web server? Because it takes some expertise, which not everyone has. You have to worry about security (a firewall is necessary). And what if the computer crashes when no one is around? Who's going to get it running again?

That's why most people pay web hosting companies to host their websites for them. At the low end, price wise, is shared hosting, where your website and the websites of many other customers are all on the same computer.

A step up from that are virtual servers, where in effect a computer's hard drive is partitioned and your website is located on one of those partitions. That keeps your site safe from anything's that happening to other customers.

A step up from that is co-location, where a computer you own (and which has web server software you installed), or a leased computer, is physically located at the hosting company's site. That gives you the advantage of configurating the server any way you want it, but you can take advantage of the hosting company's security systems and superfast (T3! and faster) connections to the internet.

(A web hosting company is a company that only hosts website. They are not the same as ISPs, which originally and primarily exist to get people on the internet.)

Sincerely,
David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[crowsfan85]

Yep, David covered it pretty well. Whether you should host in house depends on your technical knowledge and what things you actually envisioning using your server for.

Because we're a big church, 7000 people last weekend, a new record for us, and we have a lot of ministries and need to host other sites, and because I have a fairly good knowledge of Linux and server administration, the choice is obvious.

If your church is a lot smaller and doesn't have more extreme needs, then paid hosting is a good choice, even better if you can get it donated, props to iamcam. :o)

If you're in between those two options, then David's solution is great. Go with a dedicated server, ie www.serverbeach.com, in which you'll have full access to the whole server, where you'll have speed and security benefits.

[flutem3]

:confused: Conversation starters of the world UNITE!!! David and crowsfan85, what are you guys talking about please. I have been lost in the dust. Please find me.


:) Hi,

Thanks for such a thorough reply. I don't know if I totally understand the entire situation, but at least I have a notion of what you are talking about. That is much better than I had before.

You know what? I am forever ending up on the wrong place on this forum. I thought I was going to be writing this post following yours, David. You may never find this one. It will be lost in the shuffle. I will get it straight in my head shortly. It seems every forum runs a bit differently. I hope more people jump on to this one. I think it could be of terrific help to those of us who are new to computing. But I have discovered that the beginners are shy about joining in. Well, when they read what I write, maybe they will be encouraged.

TO ALL OF YOU NEW WEBSITE EDITORS OR WEBMASTERS--come aboard here. There seems to be expertise galore!! I like it.

Thanks to all who participate. You do everyone a service.

[David Gillaspey]

I thought I was going to be writing this post following yours, David. You may never find this one. It will be lost in the shuffle.Not lost at all!

Posts are ordered strictly chronologically, based on a UNIX timestamp that's saved with each post, so it's entirely possible for someone else's post to get between your post and the post to which you were responding. On a big forum, I could imagine many posts getting in between the two. So yes, it can get a little confusing if people are talking to each other (as I am doing now), rather than all responding only to the thread starter (first person who posted).

This is why the ability to QUOTE, as you did, is helpful.

If you have observed a different behavior at other forums, it could be the result of a thread/post display option. This forum, powered by vBulletin, allows threads and posts to be displayed in several ways.

In your User CP (that is, User Control Panel; see link at top left of this page), in Edit Options, about half way down is a category of options called Thread Display Options.

Under "Thread Display Mode", you have four options:

Linear - oldest first
Linear - newest first
Threaded
Hybrid

I'm using "Linear - oldest first." I should be able to say what the others do (as administrator), but being a creature of habit I haven't played around with this much. Anyway, try different settings and use the one that appeals to you or that matches what you are used to.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[wbcderek]

Well, I found out today that to my surprise that we are moving from DSL to a T1. With that we are also getting free hosting, I haven't got the paper on the specifics but I will probably use this to play with some CMS which we haven't had the equipment to do ourselves as well as using this for our streaming media. It will all depend on the specifics.

I say this to say that as your church shops around phone lines and internet connections you may be able to get the benefit of some free hosting. Even though we are the church we need to remember that we need to be good stewards of the money that God is letting us use.

[McDLT]

Conversation Starter Question: What are the pros and cons of hosting your website on your own server?

PROS

You control it.

CONS

Money
Willingness - the church needs to understand what is involved.
Computer literacy - including server skills, as well as web page development

[David Gillaspey]

You control it.This is true, but hosting companies these days provide to their shared hosting clients a "control panel." The control panel for my (shared) web hosting account (for Great Church Websites) gives me about as much control over my account as I think I'd ever really want.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[McDLT]

My church doesn't host either. I like the control I have with my hosting provider. They have a good control panel too.

I think a major stumbling block as I mentioned before is knowledge. I can say for certain at this moment in time there is no one at my church who can manage a server.

[Faithhb_lutheran]

I'm going to chime in real late on this post about the networking side of things.
T lines, dsl, satelite, or even cable will work fine for any church that passes only web pages to its audience. On the other hand if you wnat to do interactive stuff like online bible study, games for a childrens ministry or remote accounting from a server on site you need a true fiber line. fortanatly fiber should be available in most major cities by the end of 2006 ( or thats what my verizon reps keep telling me). Our church is getting it in november i think and we are going to start running independant study courses from a server on site the beginning of next year, hopefully. I will post again with results of the new lines. We'll see if they live up to the hype.

[NetMinistry]

I really think it depends on the man power you have. I personally go for the ASP model. I'm a little biased, since I built one in response to the need my own church had. There is just something about getting all the perks of Tier 1 hosting, load balancing, and all the functionality I need that I just love. Plus, it allows us to share the developed apps with other organizations.

Cons to the ASP model are that custom apps cannot generally be directly plugged into the site. We are addressing that by creating an XML API for developers. This should help resolve that issue.

I say hosting reliably with an outside company. If you can combo with a good application service provider, even better.

Blessings!

Pastor Jose Gomez, Jr.
Restoration Ministries Church
http://www.rmchurch.com
http://www.netministry.com

[cwgraves]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Be careful what you ask for". This is true when hosting your own web server.

Yes, there is a lot to know to set up the server, but in most cases, once it is set up, you don't have to do too much maintenance. With the cost of hardware (servers, DSL modems, hubs, switches, routers, firewalls, etc...), it is becoming a more viable option for churches to host their own server.

A subject that tends to be controversial in Christian circles in regards to their church is marketing. Can you sucessfully market and/or brand your church name with an outside host? Sure. But there are pros and cons to each.

The main question is: how much control do you want over what special programs, third party controls, and non-standard components are installed on your server? If you want to be able to have complete control over what is allowed on the server, you will have to host it yourself. There aren't too many hosting providers that will give you complete control - without making you purchase a dedicated server.

Many times you can host your own server cheaper than a dedicated server with a hosting company.

Another reason I like to host my own server is the SQL server data. I want to be able to use the data in my marketing efforts without sharing it with the world. It is common practice for companies to collect data and sell it to mailing list companies (although it is not entirely ethical to do so). I don't want anyone else to even have a CHANCE of getting my data!

Now, on the other hand, I've worked with churches that have absolutely NO technical knowledge. It is better for them to have their site hosted somewhere else. They can set up their static html and forget about it! They are not interested in a dynamic website, so that meets their needs.

[Faithhb_lutheran]

One thing I have noticed that got overlooked as a big stumbling block is the miscellaneous physical requirements to run a server yourself. Take California where I live the price of electricity alone to run a server on site higher than a dedicated server with one of the big hosts. So remember that there are a number of complications that can come up when you decide to move on site, and I would reccommend that you build up a cash reserve or hire someone who has done this before to help you through or it could be a bumby ride.

[cwgraves]

Another viable option is to partner with someone. When I first started hosting my own site, I partnered with another company and they helped pay for everything.

It's been about 8 years ago, and the total cost of the hardware and software was around $8,000. I set things up in my office and maintained the equipment and software. As part of the agreement, when the business loan was paid off, I got to keep the equipment and they got a free website.

It pays to be creative and it doesn't hurt to ask!

Maybe several churches in your area would agree to help split the costs.

[iamcam]

A good alternative to having your own equipment on-site to server your website is to look into virtual server accounts. With these you typically get full access to your own "computer" while the hosting company takes care of all the hardware, backups, and even tech support. Their bandwidth is also typically much greater than what the average church can afford to bring onto the campus. Although traffic might be low enough for an ADSL (business-class DSL line), for those downloading media-rich content such as movies and MP3, the DSL line will take much longer than if the site were hosted by a company with very large pipes to the 'net. It's an overall user experience thing. Besides, after paying XX dollars per month just on the equipment lease/payments plus YY dollars on the connection, you may be very close to actually paying for a decent virtual server account.

...Just something to consider

[cwgraves]

I'm pretty certain that most people hosting it themselves are not leasing a dedicated server. That is WAY too expensive for most ministries.

The main decision, like I mentioned earlier, is the amount of control you want or need.

Whenever I consult with a ministry or business to plan the design of their website, I ask the following questions:

1. What is the target audience?
2. What do you hope to accomplish with the website?
3. Is this a static html website used mostly as a brochure or billboard?
4. Is this a dynamic database driven website?

Plus MANY more questions. Several of the questions change the additional questions asked.

Once questions 3 and 4 are answered, we decide on whether the site can be hosted on a plain, cheap hosting service. Usually the plain vanilla sites are hosted on a linux server and don't allow any custom components. Several of the hosting companies have some plug-ins already installed to help their customers have things like a shopping cart.

If the site is dynamic, we decide whether we can get by with a cheaper hosting service using some of the built-in components and stay with the linux server, or whether we will need to write a custom asp or asp.net application. If we need asp or asp.net, it will need to be hosted on a Microsoft server. These servers are usually a little more expensive per month. Not all Microsoft servers have the .NET framework installed, so that is something that will have to be checked.

If the website is content driven, and doesn't require custom development, we use our portal framework that is based upon the DotNetNuke framework.

If the website starts getting enough traffic that warrants an upgrade, the decision needs to be made whether it is more cost effective to host it yourself or go with a dedicated or higher capacity virtual server.

With the cost of hardware coming down, many times it is a better return on investment to host it yourself instead of going down the decision process I described. If the church is already purchasing a DSL connection, it makes sense to host it internally.

[Faithhb_lutheran]

The line capacity problem is getting smaller everyday. In a year or two everyone will be able to get massive bandwidth to their home/business.

One question I have is what hosting companies are the best? I'll start a new thread for this one.

[cwgraves]

Unless you are creating a site for a megachurch (and most of them probably already have a website), you probably won't get the type of traffic to justify buying your own server for quite a while.

I have had a web server on a DSL line at my home office with 9 or 10 sites on it for several years now. None of them generate thousands of hits daily, so I'm satisfied with keeping it where it is.

If I were to do it again, I would have taken the $5,000 I spent on the server, along with the $100 per month I spend on my high speed DSL, and the $800 I spent on the router and switch, and used that money for a semi or fully dedicated server hosted with a reputable hosting company.

So far, we haven't considered that the server can be used for more than just a web server. The reason I bought the server in the first place was to hold my exchange mail and SQL Server.

If we can show the churches that it is a good investment to have them start using the collaboration tools built into exchange, or some other type of email and calendar/scheduling system.

At one of the churches where I was the children's pastor, the senior pastor carried a legal pad with him and jotted down notes. At any given time, he had lots and lots of pieces of paper with him. After MUCH convincing, he started using the computer for scheduling meetings, sermon notes, etc..., and can't get by without it.

A server definitely helps with more than a website. Let's remember to keep the "big picture" in mind and not focus just on the website.

[flutem3]

Curtis wrote:

"A server definitely helps with more than a website. Let's remember to keep the "big picture" in mind and not focus just on the website."


Curtis, you are so far ahead of me and what I know that it makes my head spin when I read what you write and what you think about. WOWIE!! :D

Carol

[cwgraves]

Thanks again Carol for your kind words.

One of the churches that I worked with started a local network where the pastors and other staff can share a large color laser printer and several inkjet printers. Instead of buying a seperate printer for each person, they all point to the color laser printer.

There are MANY advantages to having your own server. The key is to make sure the church is fully utilizing it. Then, if you decide to ALSO add a website, it just adds more value to the server!