1 website bs packages: Page 2 - Enhance Control Panel

1 website bs packages

mike

SystemFreaks that won't work if the websites are hosted on different servers

👍 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.

If you need to move websites for balancing your load on servers then it could be that all 5 websites in this package. and you already know this package has x & y limits to plan.

SystemFreaks

mike I don't believe its niche to be honest, its the first issue we run into after giving access to few of our resellers - agencies we are working with 🙂

slimx

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! 🙂

mike

SystemFreaks I don't believe its niche to be honest, its the first issue we run into after giving access to few of our resellers - agencies we are working with

Your resellers are hosting 1 website in NY and 2 websites in the UK in the same package? cmon man or are you moving the websites for normalizing the load in your servers.

Help me out here .. a small simulation

lets say you have a plan 20 websites for 20$ (u can relate to this plan right) (assuming 1cpu/1gb or x amount) u know that you are giving the reseller 20cpu and 20GB ram ? now lets say u have 5 only resellers of these.... 5 x 20cpu=100cpu and they are actually using only 15% u need 16 core cpu minimum which costs around ± 60$ . now you have licenses + other costs on top.

Tell me how is this working for you. maybe i am not thinking outside the box. with the current implementation dedicated packages is a way but managing ±300 small servers is not a nice thing to do.

Andrei

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.

josedieguez

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.

pratik_asabe

Andrei 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.

We call it 'Business Hosting' on which we host only premium clients as we already have cpanel offerings for our regular agency clients, but still sometimes clients need extra domains, and because we use premium hardware it will going to go up in resources quickly (in terms of keeping less contention and underselling so there's enough room to scale to every client), few things needs to be polished... instead of addon domains it should be only add domains and cpanel import should be able to use it instead of addon domains imo!

mike

slimx I vote NO ADD-ON domains!

I believe we all do. what are you doing ? how are you managing websites x server resources x costs ?

josedieguez

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.

SystemFreaks

mike Both scenarios you are mentioning are happening, Agencies are given the option to choose which Geo location group their website will be hosted to, also in case a serer gets overloaded high usage websites are moved to a server less load to make sure everything runs smoothly .

mike lets say you have a plan 20 websites for 20$ (u can relate to this plan right) (assuming 1cpu/1gb or x amount) u know that you are giving the reseller 20cpu and 20GB ram ? now lets say u have 5 only resellers of these.... 5 x 20cpu=100cpu and they are actually using only 15% u need 16 core cpu minimum which costs around ± 60$ . now you have licenses + other costs on top.

This is exactly why i am saying you need limits per website and also per package, so you can configure the pool of resources all websites can use maximun, and the resources a website can use individually, as an example package can have 5 core and each website can use up to 1, how this will be fine tuned - fitted for general use is up to enhance to decide, but the current system doesn't really work.

I want also to repeat, that we don't currently use enhance for production as web hosting Panel,is used only with a few selected clients, as a Pilot program., if in the end Enhance doesn't meet our needs, we will result into building an in house solution similar to enhance, but for now it looks promising

adil

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.

mike

adil simply said yes but .. maybe others like it so thats the purpose of discussions and i am bored of seeing +1 on feature request threads for 3 years 😂

adil

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.

Nickske00

I think no one here understands the limits are enforced on a system user... Every container has it's own linux user with the limits...

The fact a lot of you guys keep yelling cpanel this and that is your problem. Not sure what you are doing here if cpanel is so perfect..

Kosta

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

mike

Nickske00 most people here don’t use cpanel or have moved away from cpanel but why are you so pissed? We are discussing enhance packages / resources plus the 1 website package bs effects. Is it working for you? does it need improvement? How??

mike

Nickske00 I think no one here understands the limits are enforced on a system user... Every container has it's own linux user with the limits...

can’t you configure a single container to serve multiple users processes and assign resource limits as a group using cgroups and systemd slices ? with v12 on the way ? Explain to us why this won’t work in enhance because we don’t understand and you do.

mike

SystemFreaks example package can have 5 core and each website can use up to 1, how this will be fine tuned - fitted for general use is up to enhance to decide, but the current system doesn't really work.

As i can see .. it’s not only me that finds this weird and inefficient and makes selling packages with a 100 workarounds.

cPFence

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.

adil

cPFence
Now this is a response, Thanks 👍️

mike

cPFence honestly i am like you I don’t have high hopes for this being implemented but maybe … maybe with v12 some core packages are rewritten in a way that will make it possible. I honestly have no clue. But it’s definitely an annoyance for so many ppl here.

signo

cPFence I assume the resources are assigned per docker container (website), that would be the reason not to assign the resources per package. Am I right? If that is the case, then when V12 arrives it would lift the primary restriction not to have resources assigned per package, of course, it would need to be developed, but it would be possible.

« Previous Page Next Page »