Multiple websites under one plan with same limit

sikmo

So, I made a grave mistake understanding how Enhance works, and I wanted to ask other users, what they think. Let me start with - this is not about if this is bad / good, just want to hear others how they think about using Enhance.

We switched to Enhance (from RunCloud) with this logic - I create hosting plan with websites and they all run under the limits I set up. So if I gave the plan 1 CPU, 1 GB RAM and 20 GB storage, these website can't consume together more.

Firstly, I knew storage was working that way but as a soft limit. Which is fine. But based on that and "stickiness" logic in panel, I assumed that CPU + RAM works like more or less the same. I asked Adam on support how it works if user has website on another server.

This is moment, I received answer, that the limits (except storage) I setup is per website. So every website has 1 GB RAM limit, 1 CPU limit etc.

Why I wanted this? I kinda pictured something like VPS logic - they can buy more websites and use the limits to their advantage.

PS: Adam confirmed that enhance have this logic under feature request, but it is not priority because users doesn't seem to want this feature all that much. Fair enough

Now my question - I am wrong this idea like this?

I imagined instead of setting up VPS for users, I can just give them hosting plan with the limits and "dedicate" resources without the hassle (managing many VPS instances). It seemed to me like a great idea. Not overselling hosting and give users enough and what they paid for. And if user does need more power, they can buy more CPU / RAM, or whatever. And then I can just sell them websites for the price Enhance has, and they can use it as they wish.

Of course, this logic would limit the user hosting to specific server (which is fine for us, we've actually built our hosting with that in mind).

twest

I think what you are wanting is something like "package level resource limits", so a customer can buy a package that has limits applied and add as many website containers as they want (per the package limits)?

Theres feature requests for that.

I wouldn't necessarily say that's "the way it's supposed to be", as a lot of people like to argue. It's just a way that some people run things. For me, I handle a website similarly as a "cpanel account", so users can have as many addon sites on their website container as they want - and enhance is built to accommodate this specifically to be compatible with this method as it's how most panels are setup.

So my packages are mostly limited to 1 website with x limit of addon sites.

Of course with per-package limits we can define broader levels of products for customers and ways of selling products, so there's not really any negative to having that option. It's just a matter of enough people wanting it and enhance building it out. So some day this will prolly work, I would say maybe in the next 2-3 years it's possible.

At least for now you can offer two tiers of plans = packages with limited website containers that are financially feasible for your business. And packages with 1 website container that has limited addon sites.

Different business models, different ways to sell the services. You can do it both ways even.

sikmo

Yes, by hosting plan I meant package and as you say, Adam confirmed that it is feature request.

I've never seen cpanel, so can't say anything about that.

@twest would you welcome per package limits? Does it make sense to you more than per website limits?

twest

sikmo yes I like the idea of package limits, because then we can afford to setup "websites" on a 1 website per "website" basis, so on the customer account they login and see all their websites and they can click into each one to manage it - much easier UX. And as added benefit all the sites get that layer of separation for added security.

That would solve the issue of Enhance's weird naming preference website=container. We could then consider the package=container. As far as resource limitations and customer facing verbiage goes it would make more sense at least.

But, I'm fine with how things are now. I would just like to be able to rename "website" to something else, just to make that make sense. It was approved as a new feature like a year ago, just waiting for it to get dev time. Customers understand the concept of addon sites living inside their "account", they just get confused that addon sites currently live inside their "website" 🙃

bocagua

Yes, for me it's an important feature. Now that providers like hosting.com are using Enhance, it's possible that this "mass hosting" feature will be implemented.