pratik_asabe I understand your concerns, and they're valid. But this is an issue only if you want to sell cheap hosting. That is the point I am trying to make. In my opinion, Enhance is not made to sell cheap shared hosting; it's more aligned with solutions like managed WordPress hosting. So, I don't think it can be a replacement for cPanel, it's a completely different beast, and you need to sell "websites", not "accounts".

It's a new paradigm, at least for most people who are used so much to cPanel that they confuse web hosting with cPanel hosting. It's hard to sell hosting this way, I understand, but to me personally, it fits. I'm sick and tired of cPanel and cheap clients. I would rather have 1000 clients paying $15-$25 per website than 1 million clients who want $1,99 hosting with 100 GB storage to host 100 websites.

But that's just me, and Enhance is excellent for my scenario. I'm not saying you should be doing the same, you can do whatever you want, but maybe Enhance is not the best tool for what you need.

Andrei
you are still giving for granted a wrong functioning of the system.
package with multiple websites, multiply the resources
addon domains can't use different php version.

saying "well, don't think like cpanel or DA or webuzo or plesk or etc etc"
saying "well just use 1 website and charge them $20 for it"
saying "it fits me"

is so short sight, it's broken, it's not intended to be like that (i hope, it would be stupid and must be a bug), and needs to be fixed. .

not sure why so many just want to say "well it is what it is" when it's an issue, it's broken, etc.
for so many things... this included.

I personally despise the fact that there is such thing as an add-on domain.

Andrei You can think outside the cPanel box for a minute. This is not cPanel hosting, where you have a cPanel account and put X number of websites/domains there. Make your packages based on an X number of websites, not domains.
I couldn't have said it better.
It's as if CPANEL is the only structure people can adapt to.

Enhance was obviously not created off the backbone of cPanel it was a NEW AMAZING IDEA. I personally think if they sit there and try to solve a bunch of problems CPANEL created it's just going to turn into another shitty panel.

Rich I think the backup system will get a better overhaul in the future, more fine grained options to select files or sites to restore. Right now it's an efficient system, but restrictive in it's overall use. Takes a little manual work from time to time...

I cannot wait, i feel like it's the ultimate tool with so much potential, when i go to that dropdown menu i should just have more buttons to click and solve my problems

pratik_asabe You think me or others didn't thought about it already?, the whole point is package resources brother, every website is using same resources like if its a whole new cpanel account and in result server resources are going to go nuts.. Think about it, if you're giving 10 websites as a package and package has 1vCPU, 2GB Ram which is standard shared hosting nowadays you're allocating 10vCPU, and 20GB Ram to that package, and we cannot say or predict that not all websites are going to use resources at the same time, you don't know really users are nuts they go crazy sometimes!!

I feel like the solution here is quite simple (in terms of Enhance's future)
Expand on resource limitation settings > Add a PER WEBSITE limitation for every value

mike that is the only drawback i can think of. its very niche also that u want your same client with same package with different websites on different locations/servers. if a client wants his website hosted on a different continent or stack its logical to ask him to pay for another package.

I couldn't agree more!

josedieguez you are still giving for granted a wrong functioning of the system.
package with multiple websites, multiply the resources
addon domains can't use different php version.

saying "well, don't think like cpanel or DA or webuzo or plesk or etc etc"
saying "well just use 1 website and charge them $20 for it"
saying "it fits me"

is so short sight, it's broken, it's not intended to be like that (i hope, it would be stupid and must be a bug), and needs to be fixed. .

not sure why so many just want to say "well it is what it is" when it's an issue, it's broken, etc.
for so many things... this included.

The reason we are telling you not to think like "cpanel" is because you are trying to resell CPANEL the way you're doing things. This nos cpanel...

Using 1 Website / Charge Accordingly. Is literally... what Enhance is designed for.
It's like you're buying a Ferrari now and complaining that you can't use it as a Van.

It's not broken, it is different, it is a different product.
It is not what it is, it is how it should've always been

FYI. No Disrepect I wrote this message over the course of a few hours coming back and forth and dealing with CPANEL related issues. . I may have missed being "respectful". Not be-litting anyone, I just simply think (as Adam's post reinforces) the only reason Add-on domains are even there is because of cPanel dropouts.

I vote NO ADD-ON domains!

Hi everyone,

This is a straightforward request: we need the ability to manage resources per package, not per website. That’s it.

If the current method of handling resources works best for you, that’s great. However, it doesn’t align with our needs. Every business has its own approach to selling hosting, and we’re simply asking for a feature that allows Enhance to support our way of selling hosting.

This isn’t about forcing opinions—it’s a simple feature request. Enhance has implemented similar functionality before, like the Email Limit being tied to the same package on the same server. If this feature requires something similar, that’s fine with us.

If you’re managing one package with multiple sites, this approach can actually be a great idea. It allows for better resource allocation—for example, if your client has five websites but one of them requires more resources, this setup ensures they won’t face any issues.

By sharing all the resources within the package across all the websites, you eliminate the bottleneck caused by limiting resources per website. This flexibility can make resource management much more efficient and adaptable to clients' needs.

It’s not just about how we sell hosting—it’s about creating a solution that works universally, with added flexibility for everyone.

slimx

no, it's broken, you confirm yourself saying "i vote no add-on domains", but is part of Enhance, Addon Domains is part of it, no matter how much you hate them, is part of.

so if it doesn't work, it's broken, plain simple. not sure why so much buzzle about it.

no cpanel-issues are talked about in this thread, we are discussing Enhance functions and functionality, that's it.

Nickske00 indeed cpanel is perfect. Is just old fashioned and enhance theme looks better

While we don’t face issues with resources being allocated per website in our business, I completely understand the need for per-package resource allocation for other businesses. Your concerns are entirely valid.

Unfortunately, this is quite complex with Enhance’s current system architecture. The entire design revolves around one Linux user, one website, and one container , each container with its own dedicated resources.

You can run the following command to see how this works in practice:

systemd-cgtop

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but implementing per-package resource allocation would be extremely complicated and likely require a significant rewrite of many core functions and modules.

So, don’t be too surprised if this feature request doesn’t make it to production, especially given how challenging the v12 release has already been for the Enhance team.

cPFence
Now this is a response, Thanks ️