Solution to X10's growth problem

[belltown]

It seems that X10 is growing too large to effectively manage, particularly regarding the cPanel limitations that have caused all the work on the past month's migrations to have been wasted.

Have you considered, as a means of addressing these problems, splitting X10 into several, smaller more manageable sub-hosts, e.g. x10aHosting, x10bHosting, x10cHosting, etc? Each sub-host would have its own domain name, own IP address, own nameservers, own cPanel, etc., and would therefore be better equipped to deal with the limitations that have caused so many problems to date.

 

[leafypiggy]

We have a bunch of servers, we don't need more nameservers, or domain names.. We're perfectly fine as it is. We just are using software that's meant to support a max of 200 users, on a system with 25,000-30,000 users PER server.

 

[Livewire]

Also each of x10hosting's free servers -does- have their own cPanel installed - that's how we didn't know about the maximum users connected problem until now. We've never hit it before.

 

[marvso]

Has x10hosting ever considered using an alternative for cPanel? I know cPanel has a lot of features and is preferred by many in the web building industry, but I think most if not all of us can agree that up time and reliability is more important that ease of functionality in the back end of things.

 

[leafypiggy]

cPanel is a unique selling point for free hosting. Many people don't offer it, so we get a lot of users for free hosting. More free hosting signups = more profit = more advertising = more paid services signups.


Yes, we are an evil company.

 

[bhupendra2895]

Corey stated in his post that this is happening due to numbers encoded in files.Is this can't be modified? or cPanel's licence don't allow this.Because hardwares present in the market are capable to do more than the limits set by its developers.Even in a paid hosting server there would be more than 160 users and as Leafpiggy said we already breached this limit in free hosting servers and we didn't know what is the exact limit and Corey blamed documentation.I think this has happened because more than 160 users rarely used cPanel at the same time in the past.
But sometime in future x10hosting have to come up with the solution to handle more users in a single server, it is uneconomical and unpractical to use such software for free hosting which has its limitations.Although I will never love to use any other control panel which I have seen in other free hosting websites.

 

[Livewire]

It cannot be modified by x10 because it is in the closed-source section of cPanel, and cPanel has pretty much told us it's not going to happen any time soon. It may get increased in the future, but not soon enough for x10.

 

[leafypiggy]

Not 160 users, 160 concurrent connections. Front-end, backend, our system processes to add accounts..

Also, we have external modifications to push the limit of how many users we can put on one server.. We've just never known about the connection limit.

We can't modify it because the whole thing is encrypted.. This is actually isn't entirely because they don't want us touching their code, it's so no one can nullify this expensive paid software, and have it available to everyone for free. Write us a decryption algorithm, we'll gladly accept it. It will rid many headaches.

 

[nandifamily]

Why don't you guys check out PLESK? It is also a very good control panel. See if their solutions are going 2 help?

 

[icslindia]

Why don't you guys check out PLESK? It is also a very good control panel. See if their solutions are going 2 help?

I think the Cpanel which they are using right now is very easy to use and light weight with some more advantages.

I've used Vista Panel, Plesk, and Cpanel and many more. And according to me, I think Cpanel is the one which can be easily used by everyone !

However, they may try by switching to it :tongue:

 

[marvso]

So basically, there IS no solution to x10hosting's problems at the moment. Up time will only get worse and worse as more and more users join.

Therefore, as much as I like cPanel, I think it's in everyone's best interest if x10hosting switched to a different system. :/

 

[leafypiggy]

No, the solution were deploying now is the solution.. We'll just have to deploy more servers as we grow bigger and bigger.

 

[Corey]

We've looked at alternative panels and from testing and talking with sales departments none of them will be able to handle the amount of accounts. Switching panels would also mean rewriting A LOT of code. Everything we've created is made to work with cPanel's API.

cPanel told us that they will add our request to their bug tracker and it will get updated sometime... no ETA though so we're not able to sit around and wait.

The solution we just attempted switching to over the past month would have solved a lot of problems... we're very frustrated that after all the work we've put in and money spent we pretty much have to roll everything back all because of a 3 digit number in some encoded file somewhere.

We have came up with an alternative and are working on implementing it now... it's going to take a little bit though as we have a lot of work to do to get it going and also to undo everything we have done for the failed one. Hopefully I'll have some better news this evening after I've finished more testing.

 

[CWeb Creative]

i still don't get why cpanel feels that they cant change the file. It shouldn't take more that a day at MOST to do. As far as no other panel being able to support the number of accounts that is odd but i guess not too unexpected i wonder if it would help if a panel could run on a single dedicated server for the panel and have the accounts on another one totally with just a daemon to let the master manage the others in theory it would work great. Hey im sure u guys checked it but why wouldn't kloxo work with the number of accounts? Since it seems to be able to do something similar to the above stated.

 

[Livewire]

My guess is there's maybe more than 1 place it's encoded, or there's other locations that draw directly from that number, and that increasing it could seriously fubar the rest of the app.


But more than likely, they simply forgot -where- that number is and didn't want to deal with it.

 

[xav0989]

But more than likely, they simply forgot -where- that number is and didn't want to deal with it.

Let's hope!

 

[dsvbpool]

No, the solution were deploying now is the solution.. We'll just have to deploy more servers as we grow bigger and bigger.

Why don't you use virtual machines?

 

[Anna]

Why don't you use virtual machines?

That has been tested previously, and not been as successful as hoped for.

 

[marvso]

No, the solution were deploying now is the solution.. We'll just have to deploy more servers as we grow bigger and bigger.

But that will just change things back to how they were right after you moved server locations across the US, right? If I remember correctly, the servers weren't very stable then, either. :S

 

[Anna]

we're not doing it the same way as we already tried.