Shared IP Address

[qwerty]

I have a couple of sites that are hosted on shared servers, but they've always had their own IP addresses.

Now my host tells me that they're "upgrading" all their accounts to a new management system, and that domains on shared servers are now going to have shared IP addresses. They tell me that there won't be any problems with this, but if I want to pay a small (they haven't told me how small) extra fee, I can keep my dedicated IPs. I don't get why it costs more if it isn't somehow better.

Can anyone tell me what kind of problems I can expect from having to share my IP? I'm not comfortable with taking my host's word for this.

[ihelpyou]

I always opt for a dedicated ip address. Not sure if it's better or not but I pay 10 bucks per month for the priviledge of it. I don't trust another site to share my ip with.

[qwerty]

It definitely has me worrying. We went through a phase a few months ago where one of my sites kept crashing, and the host's support people finally told me that they'd tracked it down to bad code being run on one of the domains I shared the server with.

Now I'm thinking that if something like that were to happen when I'm sharing the IP, and whatever that site was doing was enough to get it banned or penalized by a search engine, that ban could be placed on the IP address rather than the domain name, and then I'm in serious trouble.

I better find out how much a dedicated IP will cost me.

[ihelpyou]

I'm thinking that the se's all only penalize or ban the 'name' now, but there is always that possibility and one I would not want to chance.

[Blue]

There are many "problems" related to this issue, but in the end it comes down to the level of expertise/service that your hosting company provides, as well as whether your site is mission critical.

For example, one of the hosts I host with uses shared servers, and therefore we all (each of us on an individual server) share not only space but things such as a mail server.

Every so often, one of the servers has found it's way onto one of the many "blacklists" around the net (those are a whole nother topic) and due to the diligence of our host the problem has been remedied in as timely a fashion as can be expected.

So, if your site is mission critical, really the only solution is to go dedicated, as just having a dedicated IP doesn't always solve all situations in a shared environment.

[Webmaster T]

Blue may know better but for older browsers I think there is some problems with shared IP's. I know in the past that was one of the reasons for not sharing IPs. I believe it only affects browsers using HTTP 1.0. Probably not the concern it was in 1999 or before.

[ArizonaSeo]

I think it's important to distinguish the IP issue from the hosting issue here:

When you speak of someone affecting your site because of bad code it should be mentioned that this likely occured regardless of the fact that your sites share an IP address.

I think the chances of any engine banning sites based on their IP address is remote these days.

[qwerty]

We didn't share the IP address at the time. I believe whatever they were doing was causing the server to hang, so any domains hosted on it were inaccessible.

[captainccs]

Originally posted by Webmaster T
Blue may know better but for older browsers I think there is some problems with shared IP's. Browsers should not look for sites by IP address, they should rely on the Domain Name Service (DNS) to find the site. Let's suppose a site has a mirror site in case the main site goes down. If the browser uses the IP address it will never find the mirror site. On the other hand, if the browser relies on the DNS, then it will be directed to the mirror because the IP address of the mirror will have replaced the original IP address in the system.

I can think of only two reasons for insisting on dedicated IP addresses. First, if you are a hosting reseller you want your private name servers to show up in the whois search. But someone knows what he is doing will be able to trace your server and your data center. The other reason are these infamous black lists that block whole servers' e-mail when one site sends what someone regards as SPAM. As Blue said, our hosting service is very good about solving this kind of problem when it arises but with a less dedicated host you will stay in trouble for some time.

Code or script problems are not IP related problems. Usually what they do is that they hog some server resource and lock out other sites that are on the same server. This is one of the reasons why advertising unlimited anything is false advertising. If one user makes unlimited use of something the others won't have access to it. I had this problem with my previous host. At times my pages would take over a minute to start loading and the reason was that the server was too busy with some other site.

In my hosting business I use a combination of private name servers and shared IP addresses and I have not had a mayor problem with that.

[bigDugan]

I use both: Name-based and IP-based Virtual Hosts (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/name-based.html#namevip). Although there may be a Compatibility with Older Browsers (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/name-based.html#compat) problem, supposedly there is a workaround with the ServerPath directive (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/core.html#serverpath) (Apache).clients who do not send the required data for the name-based virtual hosts to work properly. These clients will always be sent the pages from the first virtual host listed for that IP address (the primary name-based virtual host).This includes Whois Queries and Trace Routes as well.

If someone does a whois query on a name-based domain, they will be given the primary name-based host whois record versus the 'correct one.' I use a single IP address for each 'important' site I operate, because I believe it creates a better presence.The other reason are these infamous black lists that block whole servers' e-mail when one site sends what someone regards as SPAMThis is also a risk-- but ONLY if you are on a SHARED IP with OTHER people. If you have a dedicated server, and host your own sites, then this shouldn't be a problem. ;) Although you can still have problems with blacklists, if your domain is hosted on an ip within a banned netblock.

[qwerty]

This is giving me a lot to think about. Both domains are on shared Windows servers, so the Apache workaround won't help. And I don't control all the sites on the servers -- just those two, and for all I know the two sites are on separate boxes.

If I had enough sites to make it feasible, I'd just get a dedicated server and put them all on it, but that's not possible right now.

[bigDugan]

If I had enough sites to make it feasible, I'd just get a dedicated server and put them all on itI've been there before.
:hi:

The biggest drawback of a shared server, is resources. As mentioned, any single user on the server has the capability to bring that server to it's knees (so it seems) just by pushing the wrong button.

I used to have this problem with a hosting company many years ago, when I first started out, but won't mention Interland's name. :eek: A slow or unresponsive server can cost you more than you think! The other nice thing about using a dedicated server, is the costs for bringing a new domain online, drop drastically.