scarcity of PHP5 hosting

[Herb]

Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

[NC]

On Sep 12, 2:28 pm, Herb <[e-mail]:

>
Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4?

Because they have one system setup that they worked out a few years
ago and keep repeating on all their servers. It helps keep setup and
maintenance costs down.

That's even true for Yahoo.

It should be ESPECIALLY true for Yahoo!. Yahoo! is atypical in that
it is a hardcore BSD shop (most hosting companies that offer PHP run
on Linux). So if they ever decide to upgrade their PHP, they have to
test extra carefully for any BSD-specific problems before upgrading
their production servers.

Cheers,
NC

[Andy Hassall]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:30:26 -0700, NC <[e-mail]:

>That's even true for Yahoo.

It should be ESPECIALLY true for Yahoo!. Yahoo! is atypical in that
it is a hardcore BSD shop (most hosting companies that offer PHP run
on Linux). So if they ever decide to upgrade their PHP, they have to
test extra carefully for any BSD-specific problems before upgrading
their production servers.

For another data point, pair.com run (Free)BSD too, and they just upgraded all
their shared hosting to PHP 5.2.3 (which works nicely).

--
Andy Hassall :: an**@andyh.co.uk :: http://www.andyh.co.uk
http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space :: disk and FTP usage analysis tool

[RageARC]

But they shouldn't be using PHP 4 by now, as PHP 4 will stop being
supported as of 31 December 2007 ;).

[John Murtari]

Herb <he****@mail.comwrites:

Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

Being at a hosting provider I can give you the exact
reasons. There are two huge ones:
1) Backward compatability.
2) Ability to run PHP 4 & PHP 5 at the same time.

#2 is probably the biggest show stopper on php 5 adoption
by providers. When the change occured from php 3 -php 4, it
was possible to configure Apache servers to run both as modules
and to setup users so that files ending in .php or .php3 would
see the 'old' php3 environment. Folks wanting ot use the new stuff
could use the .php4 extension - OR - buy changing some .htaccess
mappings have all their files go to php4.

Later on after a period of warnings we gradually weaned
the folks from php 3 -php 4 and eventually stopped all 3 support.
The GREAT thing was, if a user had a real problem on 4, they could
still use 3 on their own stuff while everybody else went to 5.

When php 5 came out it appears the developers did NOT put
a priority on being able to run both as modules at the same time.
There are some 'rube goldberg' setups where you can use proxies
or setup as a cgi -- but nothing transparent to the thousands of
web sites already in existence using php 4 just fine.

We would love to use php 5 -- but we can't break sites
on the old stuff with people who don't know how to maintain their
code and their is no 'easy' transition path.
--
John
__________________________________________________ _________________
John Murtari Software Workshop Inc.
jmurtari@following domain 315.635-1968(x-211) "TheBook.Com" (TM)
http://thebook.com/

[NC]

On Sep 19, 9:23 am, John Murtari <[e-mail]:

Herb <[e-mail]:

Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even
true for Yahoo.

Being at a hosting provider I can give you the exact
reasons. There are two huge ones:
1) Backward compatability.
2) Ability to run PHP 4 & PHP 5 at the same time.

#2 is probably the biggest show stopper on php 5 adoption
by providers.

GoDaddy solved this problem somehow. You can choose (on per-directory
basis, using .htaccess files) whether *.php files are parsed using PHP
4 or PHP 5. Both PHP interpreters run as FastCGI executables.

Cheers,
NC

[Sanders Kaufman]

John Murtari wrote:

Herb <he****@mail.comwrites:

>Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

Being at a hosting provider I can give you the exact
reasons. There are two huge ones:
1) Backward compatability.
2) Ability to run PHP 4 & PHP 5 at the same time.

I use APLus.net - and the offer both. From the control panel, switching
between the two is done with the click of a radio button.

I've been toggling back and forth like a madman to see how my stuff hold
up - and haven't noticed any problems.

>
When php 5 came out it appears the developers did NOT put
a priority on being able to run both as modules at the same time.
There are some 'rube goldberg' setups where you can use proxies
or setup as a cgi -- but nothing transparent to the thousands of
web sites already in existence using php 4 just fine.

We would love to use php 5 -- but we can't break sites
on the old stuff with people who don't know how to maintain their
code and their is no 'easy' transition path.

[lawrence k]

On Sep 12, 5:28 pm, Herb <[e-mail]:

Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

Another option is to find a place that offers you your own server, for
cheap. Hostway.com is offering dedicated servers for as little as $99
a month. I got a server from them with Ubuntu on it. I was very
pleased to have my own server, for so little money. The last company
that I worked at had their servers from (was renting) from
RackSpace for $550 a month. Compared to that, Hostway seems cheap. Of
course, Hostway is not offering the awesome level of customer service
that RackSpace offers, but most of the time I don't need it.

Once you've got your own server, you can do anything you want with
it.

[The Natural Philosopher]

lawrence k wrote:

On Sep 12, 5:28 pm, Herb <[e-mail]:

>Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

Another option is to find a place that offers you your own server, for
cheap. Hostway.com is offering dedicated servers for as little as $99
a month. I got a server from them with Ubuntu on it. I was very
pleased to have my own server, for so little money. The last company
that I worked at had their servers from (was renting) from
RackSpace for $550 a month. Compared to that, Hostway seems cheap. Of
course, Hostway is not offering the awesome level of customer service
that RackSpace offers, but most of the time I don't need it.

Once you've got your own server, you can do anything you want with
it.

Given todays broadband speedss and the availability of 'no surcharge '
fixed IP addresses, why not do as I did and spend less than $350 on a
Linux PC and host it all from home..its more han enough for all low
traffic stuff, and if you are pushing gigabytes a day, why then host
your own machine in someone else's facility.

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(The Natural Philosopher)

>Given todays broadband speedss

Usually the upstream is a real bottleneck.

>and the availability of 'no surcharge '
fixed IP addresses, why not do as I did and spend less than $350 on a
Linux PC and host it all from home..

Running a root server should only be done if you _really_ know what
you're doing. There are reasons why for most people who want to run
their own machine a managed server is the best choice.

Micha

[Jerry Stuckle]

lawrence k wrote:

On Sep 12, 5:28 pm, Herb <[e-mail]:

>Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

Another option is to find a place that offers you your own server, for
cheap. Hostway.com is offering dedicated servers for as little as $99
a month. I got a server from them with Ubuntu on it. I was very
pleased to have my own server, for so little money. The last company
that I worked at had their servers from (was renting) from
RackSpace for $550 a month. Compared to that, Hostway seems cheap. Of
course, Hostway is not offering the awesome level of customer service
that RackSpace offers, but most of the time I don't need it.

Once you've got your own server, you can do anything you want with
it.

Forget the dedicated servers. I can get VPS's, which are almost as good
as dedicated server for $20/mo.

A dedicated server handles a LOT of traffic. 99.99% of the websites on
the internet need nowhere near the resources of a dedicated server. In
fact, I typically run several servers on a single VPS.

The downsize is, with complete control comes complete responsibility.
Don't expect the hosting company to manage updates, set up user
accounts, etc. for you.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

lawrence k wrote:

>On Sep 12, 5:28 pm, Herb <[e-mail]:

>>Why do so many hosting services only offer PHP4? That's even true for
Yahoo.

Another option is to find a place that offers you your own server, for
cheap. Hostway.com is offering dedicated servers for as little as $99
a month. I got a server from them with Ubuntu on it. I was very
pleased to have my own server, for so little money. The last company
that I worked at had their servers from (was renting) from
RackSpace for $550 a month. Compared to that, Hostway seems cheap. Of
course, Hostway is not offering the awesome level of customer service
that RackSpace offers, but most of the time I don't need it.

Once you've got your own server, you can do anything you want with
it.

Given todays broadband speedss and the availability of 'no surcharge '
fixed IP addresses, why not do as I did and spend less than $350 on a
Linux PC and host it all from home..its more han enough for all low
traffic stuff, and if you are pushing gigabytes a day, why then host
your own machine in someone else's facility.

And what do you do when your power goes out or your phone line goes
down? Also does your ISP allow hosting of websites (many don't, and
although they don't block port 80, putting up a website can cause them
to cut your service).

Additionally, most home ISP's have fast download times, but relatively
slow upload times - often times a 10:1 ratio or more. For instance, my
cable provider brags about 6Mb/s download speeds. But upload speeds are
around 300Kb/s. They just don't tell you that, because the typical user
will never notice (a request for a page is MUCH shorter than the page
itself). But if you put a webserver there, now you have 300Kb/s
download and 6Mb/s upload. Not what potential customers want to see.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Steve]

In article <rr******************************@comcast.com>,
js*******@attglobal.net (Jerry Stuckle) wrote:

>

Given todays broadband speedss and the availability of 'no
surcharge ' fixed IP addresses, why not do as I did and spend
less than $350 on a Linux PC and host it all from home..its more
han enough for all low traffic stuff, and if you are pushing
gigabytes a day, why then host your own machine in someone else's
facility.

Agreed.

>
And what do you do when your power goes out or your phone line goes
down? Also does your ISP allow hosting of websites (many don't,
and although they don't block port 80, putting up a website can
cause them to cut your service).

My ISP knows exactly what I'm doing, in fact, he even gave me 6 IPs
The server is Sitting on it UPS, the ADSL Router is on a UPS, if I get a
power outage, my pages continue to be served.

>
Additionally, most home ISP's have fast download times, but
relatively slow upload times - often times a 10:1 ratio or more.
For instance, my cable provider brags about 6Mb/s download speeds.
But upload speeds are around 300Kb/s. They just don't tell you
that, because the typical user will never notice (a request for a
page is MUCH shorter than the page itself). But if you put a
webserver there, now you have 300Kb/s download and 6Mb/s upload.
Not what potential customers want to see.

Agreed in principal Jerry, but with low traffic sites, and avoiding
things like Flash and large images, at 300kbps a predominantly text/html
page will still load quickly. I don't want to sit through a Flash
presentation/intro every time I go to a site, and I expect my few
visitors will think the same way. It is the scourge of the WWW.

To come back on topic, if you are running a business from your website,
and it is making you some money, then hosting is worthwhile and is a
legitimate business expense, offsettable against income/company tax. If
like me you do it for fun and self improvement, and you already have all
the kit you need, don't waste money.
- Steve

[Sanders Kaufman]

"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1...

To come back on topic, if you are running a business from your website,
and it is making you some money, then hosting is worthwhile and is a
legitimate business expense, offsettable against income/company tax. If
like me you do it for fun and self improvement, and you already have all
the kit you need, don't waste money.

I do this more for fun than money, too.
And I gotta disagree.
The value I've recieved from paying a few hundred dollars per year for web
hosting has MORE than paid for itself - just on the hobby side.
Beyond that, the income from just ONE customer pays for all my hobbying.

Having a second computer laying around is way cool.
But having an off-site, secure, well-maintained server is da bomb.

And if you ever do any MS stuff - it's an absolute necessity.
It's easy to maintain a home Unix network - but an Active Directory system
requires an AWFUL lot of computer power.

[Steve]

In article <ig*****************@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net> ,
bu***@kaufman.net (Sanders Kaufman) wrote:

*Subject:* Re: scarcity of PHP5 hosting
*From:* "Sanders Kaufman" <bu***@kaufman.net>
*Date:* Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:27:18 -0500

"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1...

To come back on topic, if you are running a business from your
website,
and it is making you some money, then hosting is worthwhile and
is a
legitimate business expense, offsettable against income/company
tax. If
like me you do it for fun and self improvement, and you already
have all
the kit you need, don't waste money.

I do this more for fun than money, too.
And I gotta disagree.
The value I've recieved from paying a few hundred dollars per year
for web hosting has MORE than paid for itself - just on the hobby
side.
Beyond that, the income from just ONE customer pays for all my
hobbying.

Having a second computer laying around is way cool.
But having an off-site, secure, well-maintained server is da bomb.

And if you ever do any MS stuff - it's an absolute necessity.
It's easy to maintain a home Unix network - but an Active Directory
system requires an AWFUL lot of computer power.

Basically we're agreeing ;-)

In short we are both saying..

Got income ? = Get hosting.

There is nothing even remotely business orientated on my sites. I'm an
electronics engineer. This really is, 'just for kicks' :-)

ergo: no income = DIY
- Steve

[Sanders Kaufman]

"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1...

Basically we're agreeing ;-)
In short we are both saying..
Got income ? = Get hosting.

There is nothing even remotely business orientated on my sites. I'm an
electronics engineer. This really is, 'just for kicks' :-)

ergo: no income = DIY

Not to just be disagreeable - but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you really want to take the hobby seriously, you gotta
have pro hosting.

A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where you put
that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing machines, and
actually skiing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1...

>Basically we're agreeing ;-)
In short we are both saying..
Got income ? = Get hosting.

There is nothing even remotely business orientated on my sites. I'm an
electronics engineer. This really is, 'just for kicks' :-)

ergo: no income = DIY

Not to just be disagreeable - but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you really want to take the hobby seriously, you gotta
have pro hosting.

A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where you put
that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing machines, and
actually skiing.

Where does pro hosting start?
I've RUN a pro host. Its essentially no different from what I have at home.

Sure eventually we RAIDED it and put dual ISP feeds on it..

But it was earning us over $20,000 a year on just a 256K feed..

Today I can get that over my phone line EASILY.

In real terms the likelihood of phone or power outage is low: here
anyway. In fact over the last year my ISP has been down more often than
my computers have. That means I am no worse off.

For many many sites with high content into a niche market, where traffic
is pretty low, home hosting wins hands down, especially if there is a
lot of site development going on.

OK if one day the traffic gets burdensome and the customer is paying
megabucks, move the machine to someone else's machine room.

You have to balance all the issues There is no one best solution.

[Steve]

In article <xd*****************@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net> ,
bu***@kaufman.net (Sanders Kaufman) wrote:

A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where
you put that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing
machines, and actually skiing.

Maybe that's where I've drifted off course.. I should have an income
from it by now ;-)

Until then, I'll stick to the arcade games. :-P

Keep yer elbows in!

- Steve

[Sanders Kaufman]

"The Natural Philosopher" <[e-mail] in message
news:11***************@despina.uk.clara.net...

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where you put
that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing machines,
and actually skiing.

Where does pro hosting start?

I've RUN a pro host. Its essentially no different from what I have at
home.

Professional doesn't just mean you made money.
It means that you manage and maintain it as if it mattered.

You *can* operate a home server professionally, but it would be
prohibitively expensive.
As you go on to say - you've done it. Many of us have.
But without the economies of scale enjoyed by hosting providers, it cost oh
so very much.

For many many sites with high content into a niche market, where traffic
is pretty low, home hosting wins hands down, especially if there is a lot
of site development going on.

Yes - for sites that don't *need* to work, home-hosting can be a very
cost-effective solution.
It's like how, if you don't need to go anywhere, having a picture of a car
is more cost-effective than actually having a car.

OK if one day the traffic gets burdensome and the customer is paying
megabucks, move the machine to someone else's machine room.

I've always found that it's best to resolve such issues *before* they arise.

You have to balance all the issues There is no one best solution.

Well - only the actual issues. The actual issue presented by the OP was one
in which they wanted off-site hosting, and your response, that they consider
home-hosting.
Because of the cost and complexity of network administration (especially for
someone who's just learning to program some web pages) - ya gotta go with
pro hosting.

I remember the first time I hosted a domain on my home network. I built out
a FreeBSD machine with the defaults, and never turned it off. Then, one
day, GTE called me and told me that they were cutting me off because I had
become a SPAM relay. When I checked, my Unix box was just a goin crazy
taking in and sending out spam.

As Reverends Bush, Rice and Ashcroft once said, "Do you really want the
first sign of trouble to be a nuclear mushroom cloud?".

[Jerry Stuckle]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1.. .

>>Basically we're agreeing ;-)
In short we are both saying..
Got income ? = Get hosting.

There is nothing even remotely business orientated on my sites. I'm an
electronics engineer. This really is, 'just for kicks' :-)

ergo: no income = DIY

Not to just be disagreeable - but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you really want to take the hobby seriously, you
gotta have pro hosting.

A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where you
put that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing
machines, and actually skiing.

Where does pro hosting start?
I've RUN a pro host. Its essentially no different from what I have at home.

Sure eventually we RAIDED it and put dual ISP feeds on it..

But it was earning us over $20,000 a year on just a 256K feed..

Today I can get that over my phone line EASILY.

In real terms the likelihood of phone or power outage is low: here
anyway. In fact over the last year my ISP has been down more often than
my computers have. That means I am no worse off.

In the real world, over the last 10 years, my home goes out several
times a year. Probably 80% or more are short - 5 minutes or less, and
covered by the UPS. The longest was 5 days when the remnants of a
hurricane came through. I lose power for an extended period (1 hour or
more) about once a year.

My cable is out more often; probably once a month or so. Again, most
are short. but at least twice a year I lose it for an hour or more. Of
course, I don't know if that went down if I'm in bed or not home, so
it's probably much more than that.

For many many sites with high content into a niche market, where traffic
is pretty low, home hosting wins hands down, especially if there is a
lot of site development going on.

OK if one day the traffic gets burdensome and the customer is paying
megabucks, move the machine to someone else's machine room.

You have to balance all the issues There is no one best solution.

Decent hosting costs you less than $50/yr. You'll spend that much
keeping a computer running 24/7.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[The Natural Philosopher]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1. ..

Basically we're agreeing ;-)
In short we are both saying..
Got income ? = Get hosting.

There is nothing even remotely business orientated on my sites. I'm an
electronics engineer. This really is, 'just for kicks' :-)

ergo: no income = DIY

Not to just be disagreeable - but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you really want to take the hobby seriously, you
gotta have pro hosting.

A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where you
put that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing
machines, and actually skiing.

Where does pro hosting start?
I've RUN a pro host. Its essentially no different from what I have at
home.

Sure eventually we RAIDED it and put dual ISP feeds on it..

But it was earning us over $20,000 a year on just a 256K feed..

Today I can get that over my phone line EASILY.

In real terms the likelihood of phone or power outage is low: here
anyway. In fact over the last year my ISP has been down more often
than my computers have. That means I am no worse off.

In the real world, over the last 10 years, my home goes out several
times a year. Probably 80% or more are short - 5 minutes or less, and
covered by the UPS. The longest was 5 days when the remnants of a
hurricane came through. I lose power for an extended period (1 hour or
more) about once a year.

My cable is out more often; probably once a month or so. Again, most
are short. but at least twice a year I lose it for an hour or more. Of
course, I don't know if that went down if I'm in bed or not home, so
it's probably much more than that.

>For many many sites with high content into a niche market, where
traffic is pretty low, home hosting wins hands down, especially if
there is a lot of site development going on.

OK if one day the traffic gets burdensome and the customer is paying
megabucks, move the machine to someone else's machine room.

You have to balance all the issues There is no one best solution.

Decent hosting costs you less than $50/yr. You'll spend that much
keeping a computer running 24/7.

Depends on how many sites are on it, and whether it was doing that anyway.

And how much time it takes you to upload data, and how much it really
costs you with plenty of storage on it. MY ISP starts to talk real money
if it's over 30Mbytes. And whether it has the sort of access you want,
and runs the special code you want.

[Jerry Stuckle]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Steve" <j8*******@dea.spamcon.orgwrote in message
news:me***********************@rook.127.0.0.1.. .

Basically we're agreeing ;-)
In short we are both saying..
Got income ? = Get hosting.
>
There is nothing even remotely business orientated on my sites. I'm an
electronics engineer. This really is, 'just for kicks' :-)
>
ergo: no income = DIY

Not to just be disagreeable - but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if you really want to take the hobby seriously, you
gotta have pro hosting.

A home server is fine for learning on, but a pro server is where you
put that learning into practice.
It's the difference between riding one of those arcade skiing
machines, and actually skiing.

Where does pro hosting start?
I've RUN a pro host. Its essentially no different from what I have at
home.

Sure eventually we RAIDED it and put dual ISP feeds on it..

But it was earning us over $20,000 a year on just a 256K feed..

Today I can get that over my phone line EASILY.

In real terms the likelihood of phone or power outage is low: here
anyway. In fact over the last year my ISP has been down more often
than my computers have. That means I am no worse off.

In the real world, over the last 10 years, my home goes out several
times a year. Probably 80% or more are short - 5 minutes or less, and
covered by the UPS. The longest was 5 days when the remnants of a
hurricane came through. I lose power for an extended period (1 hour
or more) about once a year.

My cable is out more often; probably once a month or so. Again, most
are short. but at least twice a year I lose it for an hour or more.
Of course, I don't know if that went down if I'm in bed or not home,
so it's probably much more than that.

>>For many many sites with high content into a niche market, where
traffic is pretty low, home hosting wins hands down, especially if
there is a lot of site development going on.

OK if one day the traffic gets burdensome and the customer is paying
megabucks, move the machine to someone else's machine room.

You have to balance all the issues There is no one best solution.

Decent hosting costs you less than $50/yr. You'll spend that much
keeping a computer running 24/7.

Depends on how many sites are on it, and whether it was doing that anyway.

And how much time it takes you to upload data, and how much it really
costs you with plenty of storage on it. MY ISP starts to talk real money
if it's over 30Mbytes. And whether it has the sort of access you want,
and runs the special code you want.

30 megabytes? I'm not talking about your ISP. I'm talking about REAL
web hosting companies - where you can get several gigabytes for under
$50/yr.

And uploading data takes virtually none of my time at all. I just pick
the files to upload and my program does all of them at once, hands off.
Or I can synchronize the sites and let it pick the files which need to
be uploaded.

No problem at all. And I can run pretty much everything I need on a
shared host.

Now if you're getting into heavy use sites, shared hosting won't work
for you. But you wouldn't want to do those on your home PC, either.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================