Here's what I have learned about saving money on webhosting...

[Compnerd]

Most webmasters know that a majority of web hosting services can charge 100 dollars or more for webhosting (includes SQL and other necesities)....

The following information will help your team save alot of money... All you need is a computer, that you can leave on...

I have found that the Apache Server system, is the most commonly used server system, by website hosting services, including: Godaddy, Doteasy, and FreeWebs... You want to know how much money the Apache server system costs??? $0 dollars... So you can install it on a vacant system, that you can leave on. It works just as well as the hosts, and you can get the SQL database installed on that system too.

The only downside: You are responsible for the maintenance... It's not a huge task, but it's worth a try... It installs on any system running Linux or Windows...

http://httpd.apache.org/ <<<- all the information is here

[pheadxdll]

I've made / installed linux servers before and they have been very loyal. I've installed php, mysql, and other neat services and it all cost a grand total of $0.

The main reason you have to use a hoster is because a typical home connection is not succifient to have a server hosted on. You can get dirt cheap hosting because the hoster uses free software like apache and php. My hosting package for my robotic site costs $9/mo because of that. Apache is great software and is worth checking out.

[GRaduns340]

There are 3 big things to worry about with running your own server:

1) Security - When you open a computer to the Internet you are guaranteed to get hack attempts on it. DON'T leave such a computer running on a shared network, or you're asking for trouble with the whole system. The more possible points of attack, the more likely you are to be hacked. Even something as simple as a Telnet PUT and you could be ruined.

2) Speed - As the last post said, most home connections don't run on a very high bandwidth, relative to web hosting services. If you want good connections from farther than around the block, you should have a T1.

3) Legal - Some ISP's slip something into the contract restricting you from hosting to the web, just as a way to make more money off their higher packages. You can get a connection for a business account or something along those lines that normally allows hosting, but otherwise they can charge pretty outrageous fines for that.

Running Apache isn't a bad idea, but make sure you do it right. There are other ways about it, as well. I run IIS across the network and use the router firewall to limit web access to that computer.

[theun4gven]

Originally Posted by Compnerd

It installs on any system running Linux or Windows...

... and it comes pre-installed with Mac OS X along with PHP. Installing MySQL is free and easy. And if you have an unused PC lying around, a LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) setup is as cheap as they come: free. We have our team code repository stored on a mentor's home Linux system.

[tdlrali]

Team 469 is running their own server, too.
Of course we also use Apache (who uses IIS anyways?).

We don't have to worry about connection speed and reliability, one of our sponsors put our server in their server farm

[GRaduns340]

I use IIS because 1) I had a windows install already, so it worked nicely 2) I can also move into ASP and ASP.NET at any time, which is important to at least have available for me, and 3) Remote desktop is quite nice.

It's no harder to set up than Apache, and didn't cost me a penny more.

[tdlrali]

I use IIS because 1) I had a windows install already, so it worked nicely 2) I can also move into ASP and ASP.NET at any time, which is important to at least have available for me, and 3) Remote desktop is quite nice.

1) Apache runs just fine under windows
2) PHP is better (in my opinion) than ASP
3) Linux has remote desktop (VNC, X through SSH)

[GRaduns340]

I can respond to all 3 with... PHP over ASP is an opinion, one which I tend to agree with, but ASP.NET is gaining momentum, especially in the big business. For now, yes, I use PHP, but the availability of ASP for the future (and also for the class I took last semester) is worth using IIS.

[Kamikaze]

Speaking of web servers, I tend to prefer Lighty over the others because of its speed and small footprint.

Web hosting really doesn't have to cost a whole lot though. Take a look at NearlyFreeSpeech. It's pay for what you use, so you can get by on a low-traffic site with $5 a year or even less. Shell access and Haskell CGI are cool too.

[Knippschild]

I believe it was previously mentioned, but hosting your own server on a home computer is very risky.

While technically, it would be considered illegal (if it's in a contract), there would most likely be no legal action taken against you. The way an ISP can detect if you are running an open website is by monitoring port usage. If they see incoming connections on common web (HTTP, FTP, etc) ports such as 80 and now even 81, they will usually shuffle your IP. This more of a hassle because you'd have to change your domain to reflect the change. After continued website host-age, the ISP may eventually discontinue service or append fees to your account.

Also, even if it is legal, it's most likely going to be lagged due to it most likely being on Cable/DSL.

If you host any kind of server, it should be fairly dedicated to that application otherwise you can use resources and cause some sort of slowdown elsewhere on the client side while browsing.

Your home computer will also be vulnerable to attacks, no doubt.. and running an open server on windows is a bad idea in itself (no offense, microsoft) as that opens you to windows' many vulnerabilities and exploits. Most server farms run a flavor of linux (RedHat, Ubuntu (not as much), Debian, FreeBSD, etc) which most server software (HTTPd, IRCd, etc) are meant for.

[Bharat Nain]

I prefer to pay a reliable web service with quality options than host it in my basement. The reasons are mentioned above.

[Kyle Fenton]

When you add up all the cost, you don't save any money at all.

For example, the electricity alone would probably at the same price or over as the web hosting solutions.

For example a typical desktop consumes about 100W of power. 1 year would be 8736 hours. A typical kilowatt hour is about a dime. So when you do the math it would be

100W * 8736 * (.1/1000wh) would be around $90 a year

There are many hosting solutions out there that cost a lot less. Plus many hosting companies provide an insane amount of disk storage, and bandwidth. For example surpass hosting offers 200 gb storage/ 2tb bandwidth for $70/year.

So for this and the examples above, it is cheaper and better for a team to use a hosting solution.

[Racer26]

I think you're miscalculating energy usage... I'm no physics major, but I believe Watt ratings on Computer PSU's are on the 12V side of the conversion... If I remember my high school physics days, 100W at 12V is only 10W at 120V. Not that I actually care.

[Knippschild]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I think you're miscalculating energy usage... I'm no physics major, but I believe Watt ratings on Computer PSU's are on the 12V side of the conversion... If I remember my high school physics days, 100W at 12V is only 10W at 120V. Not that I actually care.

The point is that it is more cost-efficient to get a plan

[meatmanek]

Conservation of energy: 100W is 100W.
A power supply drawing 100 watts from the wall will put out 100 watts in heat, noise, and electrical power. You're thinking of amps. 100 amps on the 12v side would be about equal to 10 amps on the 120v side.