to use or not to use Directadmin. Your opinion.

M

mrjeffchen

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
2
I use directadmin in all my servers that have multiple websites, however I am going to setup another server with a dedicated single website. Having directadmin will add some overhead, so I'm wondering if it even makes sense to have it installed?

what is your opinion about installing directadmin, when you would only be maintaining one website?

what are the pros and cons?
 
Directadmin is only needed really for you if you want ease of setting up and administering your server. It gives access to customers so you dont have to do things manually. Of course no control panel is ever needed it is just a luxury.
 
I disagree with floyd; we'd certainly consider using DirectAdmin on a dedicated-server-site; it makes updates so much easier for us.

Of course if you're a command-line admin with only one server to maintain, or if you're happy with all the versions supplied by your distribution and don't make many changes, then DirectAdmin may be overkill for you.

Jeff
 
Time = dollars

How much is DA going to cost you verses the time its going to take you to set all the software required to run your site yourself? How much is your time worth?

If you have customers that need a control panel, that is different. But for your own web site, the above questions are what you need to ask yourself.
 
mrjeffchen said:
I use directadmin in all my servers that have multiple websites, however I am going to setup another server with a dedicated single website. Having directadmin will add some overhead, so I'm wondering if it even makes sense to have it installed?

what is your opinion about installing directadmin, when you would only be maintaining one website?

what are the pros and cons?
Click to expand...

Very good pro is there is free stuff out there that would do the job fine for a single website www.syscp.org for example.

Only con would be your distro not supported!

David
 
I am going to be getting DirectAdmin for my 3 sites I Own, so its worth it to me.
 
Typically when we're putting a single site on a server, it's because that site is running a beefy app that requires the horsepower and security a dedicated host can provide.

We usually put mail for that site on a server that has a control panel and keep the dedicated server as clean as possible.

We haven't moved our shared servers to DA yet, but I hope to at the beginning of next year. Although the supported methods of installing/running DA use either 1) DA supplied daemon binaries ( ie. apache, exim, proftpd, dovecot, etc. ), or 2) compiling daemons from scratch via custombuild, I have chosen DA because it is fairly lightweight, will run on Debian/Ubuntu, and with a little extra configuration will run with the OS supplied daemon binaries.
 
Well the moment I got my server I installed DA, I didn't know what it was back then (2005) but I thought well I'll try it. And well knowing nothing about linux it was the best choice ever especially managing your databases, creating domains etc. etc. Even if I only had 1 website to install I would still take DA because you never know if you are going to expand and it saves you a lot of time in my opinion..

So my answer would be YES, even for 1 website I would still take it... Also depends on the license you have to pay.. :D
:D
 
We also believe in using DirectAdmin even for only one domain.

Why?

Because unless we want to spend many hours administrating a box we have a choice of either using the OS package system or the DirectAdmin package system (in our case custombuild). And custombuild is a lot more flexible; a lot more configurable. Thanks, smtalk, for all the hard work.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top