MySQL with

[Matt]

I don't mean to be elitist, but I'd just as soon not see the prices go down or the MySQL become a cheaper service. I don't pay my $40/month to get hooked up to a server that's swamped: I'm paying for MySQL >AND< speed.

Which is what I was factoring in. The point is that the MySQL accounts would be revenue generating and that revenue would be reflected by usage. Unless MySQL is not set up in such a way that it scales easily, "swamped" MySQL servers wouldn't happen, because the money to upgrade the MySQL servers would be there when it was time to upgrade.

That said, Evoir, what about a different tact? Get one Gold service, run several vBulletins on it.

Running multiple vBulletins on one account... wouldn't this tie up the MySQL server just as much as running one vBulletin on 6 accounts?

One of the reasons I pay for FutureQuest is for them not to take the temptation to lower the price

Lowering the price... that would be terrible Seriously, what I was suggesting would not affect pricing on the other accounts.

the bottomline seems to be that the prices FQ would have to charge "just for MySQL" in its present form is about what the difference between a Silver (Basic?) and a Gold account would cost.

A stand-alone MySQL account priced at $9.95/mo would be about the difference between a Silver and Gold account... $14.95/mo would be more in line with what I was thinking. However, keep in mind that a Gold account's IRMs can't communicate with the database. The advantage of an IRM is that you don't have to buy another hosting package just to start up a few new web sites. So, to currently do this, one would have to purchase 2 Gold accounts. With the sort of package I'm suggesting, one would purchase 1 Silver account, 1 MySQL account, 1 IRM, and a ~ MySQL cross-connect. With 2 low-traffic sites, the second would be cheaper. As traffic increases, so too would demands on the MySQL server, and correspondingly, price of the package required to meet the owner's needs.

we seem to be heading more towards php and mysql formats - at least in the scripts i need for clients.

So am I. Even basic PHP scripts commonly require MySQL. I understand why, since PHP otherwise can't store or read files or data w/ suitably secure permissions set (when PHP is being run as an Apache module). I have a Silver account with a few IRMs. I'd happily purchase a stand-alone MySQL account for $14.95/mo (paid yearly) if it offered me the ability to run PHP + MySQL scripts on both the primary account and its IRMs.

My impression of what FQ is trying to avoid is a Gold account, maxed out with IRMs, all utilizing MySQL databases at full hilt, with the account owner simply paying the price of a single Gold account. If FQ were to offer stand-alone MySQL accounts, in such a case the owner would have to pay for a more expensive MySQL package. At the other end of the spectrum is an account holder with low traffic IRMs requiring MySQL or with multiple Basic/Silver accounts requiring MySQL. The way things are now, FQ can't accomodate such users.

Matt
- Not demands, just suggestions

[dank]

Paul, I had hoped to host a site with FQ along the lines of your multiple vB's on one account suggestion, but it wasn't allowed for understandable reasons.

Dan

[PaulKroll]

it wasn't allowed for understandable reasons

Well, that's telling then isn't it? They're that big a server killer, that even a set of smaller, less traveled ones are not allowed on a single account? Ouch.

wouldn't this tie up the MySQL server just as much as running one vBulletin on 6 accounts

Actually in the light of day I can see where it'd be worse: they'd all be on the same machine. At least on seperate accounts FutureQuest could set them to be several different mysql servers.

The pricing you suggest seems closer to fair, though I don't see the IRMs being allowed to access the db if running several vBulletins on a single full account isn't allowed. Of course, what seems fair to me or you may seem like a horrible atrocity to the FQ folks, so YMMV. For multiple vBulletins per account, the legendary high capacity server might be a possibility, but not knowing the pricing, I have no idea how that would work out for folks.

[dank]

Well, that's telling then isn't it? They're that big a server killer, that even a set of smaller, less traveled ones are not allowed on a single account?

I should have explained myself a bit better. It wasn't actually vB's I was hoping to put to use, rather hosting of several [likely low traffic] searchable databases for clients, which would be similar to a reseller having their clients' forums under a shared domain. The potential for resource abuse from a single domain was the primary concern, not the number of database slurping installations, per se. Now that I think about it, there's a lot of grey area in my take on the explanation.

Dan

[Evoir]

Originally posted by PaulKroll:
... you ARE a reseller since that other thread, aren't you? Allow me to throw this large, stuffed animal at you if you aren't.

Well,...

I'm not. It just seems like a bit of a hassle, having to bill clients for their web server space. My biz is just me, plunking away making websites. If I am a reseller, then I have to bill my clients and I simply pay FQ for all the packages, right?

[Jeff]

Right, as a reseller you pay FutureQuest and then bill your clients. I actually find this works well - I also started paying for their domains and including that on a single yearly bill to them. Otherwise, I found myself always asking "did you pay this or that" or them asking me "do I have to pay this or did you?". Easier to just have one yearly bill from their webmaster for hosting+domain+routine maintenance to keep it simple, and never having to wonder who paid what when and to whom...

[Evoir]

so then, do you own thier domain?

[Jeff]

No I wouldn't do that. I would always register domains under their name (with them and/or their company listed as the registrant and admin contacts.) I would simply list myself as the billing and tech contacts.

[Evoir]

Jeff,

I am sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you did that. I was just confused about how it all works. Please forgive. What you said makes sense.

[Deb]

The Reseller's Advantage is certainly the way to go when multiple accounts are in the works. Even if all of the accounts are yours alone the Reseller's Advantage offers quite a discount with Gold Packages being "as low as" $17.50 a month! Uhhh yes, that's cheaper than the Monthly Basic Package as listed on the web site. Many reseller's are only paying 89.70 a year for their Basic packages which equates to just under $7.50/monthly.

If you have not considered the Reseller's Advantage yet..by all means check it out! I have no hesitation in noting that FutureQuest offers some of the HIGHEST reseller discounts found on the net with a discount/point foundation.

http://www.FutureQuest.net/Services/Reseller/

Packaged stand-alone MySQL accounts (i.e. no FTP, e-mail, web hosting included)

Accounts would be billed based on:
1. bandwidth
2. requests/ month
3. storage

Matt, quite honestly I do not understand what you are suggesting. What I *think* you are suggesting is for FutureQuest to simply offer MySQL as a VAS (Value Added Service) the same as we currently offer extra FTP accounts etc with a monthly fee for the MySQL VAS. However at a rate of $15/month it just does not seem to make sense.

I have considered many times going ahead and putting MySQL up as VAS in that way just so that when people ask (and we do get asked A LOT) I could tell them yes... but at the same time I can see them responding with "But that's no cheaper then just going Gold!" because in the end just upgrading to Gold does make more sense. As far as resource usage we would treat it just as we do with the packages that do include MySQL. Disk Space, Bandwidth, and Resource usage comes from what the full package offers (which again makes going Gold wiser since it provides more of these things).

The only way for FutureQuest to bring the MySQL service down in price is in fact to do like most other hosts..meaning we place MySQL back on the Community Servers to avoid the maintenance costs of the dedicated MySQL servers..but by doing this I would certainly fear the cost of Uptime Guarantee Credits since I wholeheartedly believe it would lower the QOS (Quality of Service) of web site delivery.

Do you guys want MySQL as a VAS at the rate of $15/monthly? Does that really solve something for you? I keep fearing I'm missing something in that area as every time I look at it, while standing in my "Site Owner" shoes, the Gold just makes more sense. When I look at it in my "FutureQuest working shoes" I only see more administrative costs with people then having the ability to turn MySQL on, then off, then on, then off while they add and remove that monthly fee etc. Noting also that Paul Kroll really hit the nail on the head with a great deal of his post. In the area of QOS offering MySQL to too many would hurt...

Thoughts?

Deb
- Which is cheaper: 2 for a dollar or 50 cents each?