I am trying to simulate some packages in enhance. Its a total failure ! We need this "scope creep" to creep on this "website" naming/resources bs...
Its just crap to create all packages with 1 website. if your brave enough to create a package with like 10 websites .. you should pray a client not abuse the resources given to him.
The whole panel is revolved around websites ... don't tell me to add them as domains.
I dunno how this is not a fundamental issue.
How is this working for you ?
Adam said a feature will be coming eventually so we can all rename "website" to whatever we want (account, container, etc). In the meantime, we don't even acknowledge the naming oddity at all - just sell packages like normal as accounts with X number of "sites" allowed per account. Haven't had anyone complain yet, I think people either figure out the "website" is their "account", or they just don't even notice it or care. Have had lots of requests "how to add additional sites" - which is easy to just point to the Domains and Apps sections to add more sites as needed to their "account".
If you really wanted to address it with customers on sales pages, I don't think it would be hard to explain, but I think it's just drawing attention unnecessarily.
I personally will change it to container or more likely 'package' when the feature comes to change naming schemes. It can be quite confusing. Accounts already exist and have their own meaning.
@twest's idea of not drawing attention to it and simply stating what a package (website) can offer... either X websites + X staging sites. Stating it's shared resources and administrative access for this "package" (website) or limit it to one website + X subdomains + x staging sites is all we can do at this stage.
If upon delivery of a sale, you provide a document or links to knowledge base saying, this is how you add other websites, domains, subdomins and stagging sites, that hopefully will navigate people through it and produce less tickets.
So in the future people will subscribe to different packages, at least for me. For now I'll work around it best I can.
twest The issue is not the name 
. It’s the resources + the flow of creating new websites/features. If you create a 10 website package u get a good flow but horrible resource limit and vice versa.
Rich i thought of doing it like that but it’s actually a mess.
I cannot figure a correct/decent way of offering packages other than dedicated packages.
I do not know how this is not an issue for you guys. but with the move to v12 to systemd (slicing) this should be addressed in some way. the websites should share the same resources with the package not multiply.
10 websites or 20 websites for x amount
2 cpus / 4 cpu
4GB memory / 8 GB
Life is easy .. i do not have to write a PHD thesis for users to do anything. its already easy as the first call to action button is add website 
it will be more profitable for enhance too 
While the "Website" terminology is annoying and I can't wait for the rename function to come out, we don't really have any issues with giving people addon domains and just letting them add extra domains to the same "Website".
twest Bigest problem we faced is the backups, user can't restore a single website, the user has to restore all the websites within the package, which as you understand can create Confusion, mistakes, etc....
For now since this is a trying phase for us, we just hand them different websites per domain, anyway the clients are so few that there is noway they lag the server.
Hoping that enhance will change the resources to work as per package not per website at least on websites beingon the sameserver,but if they don't we will probably have to tweak a bit the offers.
SystemFreaks 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...
Rich Looking forward to that, the plan is to try to adjust into Enhance and not vice versa
SystemFreaks I raised same issue in one of my feature requests, currently clients can not able to restore singe addon domain, he has to restore everything which is nightmare bcz users might not want to restore all websites, right? and as mike says, he is right, website concept is bit confusing number one, second, resource allocation currently is website based not package based, so either things are not practical in the case of multi-domain hosting offerings!
Adam is aware of both the issues and i hope he will address those in coming releases.. other than this everything is almost perfect...
pratik_asabe same problem for staging sites, it copies and restores all addon sites as well. For that reason, we disabled staging site functionality until such a time that it can be used to copy only a single site at a time.
twest Oh, i suspected that but never tried n aware of it, its obvious actually bcz this whole thing certainly needs some revamping to do.. im sure its getting fixed in future...
We do have granular backup restore coming very soon - all the backend is done, it's only the UI which needs to be completed.
However addon domains mainly exist for backward compatibility with cPanel. I would always recommend creating separate websites so that you can benefit from the isolation/containerisation that Enhance offers.
twest pratik_asabe same problem for staging sites, it copies and restores all addon sites as well. For that reason, we disabled staging site functionality until such a time that it can be used to copy only a single site at a time.
If you are using the staging functionality in Enhance then the staging site should be standalone and restoring it shouldn't affect any other website. A staging website cannot have addon domains.
Adam I would always recommend creating separate websites so that you can benefit from the isolation/containerization that Enhance offers.
Thats the whole point of this thread. It’s just better to create websites in enhance not add-on domains but the resources must be limited to the package so we can offer 5, 10 websites etc..
Is this change planned for enhance ?
I absolutely love enhance especially the way we can manage multiple servers from a single dashboard. However as hosting provider who understand end user requirements.
Here are few of the things that are urgently needed to make enhance work for us.
1- Ability to rename websites to containers etc
2- Ability to clone an app within the website to create test app and clone it back.
3- Restore the backup of single app not just whole website.
4- Allowing end users to allow their designers/dev/clients to access single app within the container/website.
These are must have for us to compete with cPanel based hosting providers.
Kind regards,
Your solution is great, but copanies who have already onboarded clients based on cpanel account based system. 1 website = 1 container = 1 account = multiple sites/domains will struggle to adapt to this.
Both your solution and my solution for existing enhance proivders should ideally be implemented with a simple option. Allocation resources per website/container or per package.
What if you don't allow add-on domains or subdomains, and only alias domains are allowed in a package?
Each website is actually only one website. If the client needs to add more websites, they can do it by clicking the Add website button, which creates another website separate from the first one. It can even be in a different location.
What is wrong with this approach?
