Thread

Just so I’m clear on this, as it’s still a bit fuzzy from the MSM FAQ page (and I can’t get the screencast to run for some reason)...

I have two separate domains (two different “sister” sites) on the same server that I want to run off of a single commercial installation of EE. 

I need to purchase:
1. Single Commercial License of EE
2. Single Commercial License of MSM

Is this correct? If not, what do I need?

Thanks in advance.

Andy

That’s correct. The MSM gives you two additional site licenses so you can run up to three sites with that configuration.

So long as all of the sites are owned by the same entity, of course.

Got it.  Thank you. And, yes, that is the case - both sites are owned by the same commercial entity (company).

Thanks again!

Andy

You “can” use a single EE installation and run multiple sites on the same server without MSM.

It’s just not as much fun.

You “can” use a single EE installation and run multiple sites on the same server without MSM.

It’s just not as much fun.

Indeed, not only would you lack the clear back-end distinction general separation of data, it is also not supported, and for a commercial endeavor, that’s probably a critical point.

Given the way you guys do everything else (attention to detail, great product, real benefits for customers), I’m sure it’s more than fair and worth it, too.

My understanding of the use of multiple domains/sites with one installation is that it uses path.php, similar to MSM, to redirect. So, it’s quite easy to set up multiple domains/sites using a single install of EE, and it’s been that way for nearly forever. It works very well, and since it’s still an EE installation, there isn’t much to support beyond normal, if at all. There are some issues which make MSM a bargain, though, including the integration and separation of data, separate domain/site management, separate preferences, search and results, and so on. Highly recommended.

Right, it’s the separation that’s the key, RonnieMc.  Using the hackish path.php only method, without MSM, there’s nothing to prevent you from accessing other Sites’ templates, which is not only undesirable, can lead to some dupe content penalties for each domain.

Another thing to bear in mind was that before the MSM, those using that method commonly complained of being forced to use the same user message and email notification templates for all of their “sites”.  That’s another area where separation is key.

Not to mention permissions by member group per Site, and a million other things.  The classic method was really popular, but also really problematic for those trying to use it.

In any case, the MSM is a really elegant solution that works very nicely and that we can support.  Definitely worth it; and you can always try out the back-end via the 30-day hosted demo before purchase.

It works very well, and since it’s still an EE installation, there isn’t much to support beyond normal, if at all.

This isn’t true, which is the reason we created the MSM and ceased support for the hack-ish method. The old method, used minimally, did not cause many support issues. But people didn’t use it minimally, they took it to extremes, hack upon hack upon hack, and it could create very complicated support issues that fell well outside of what we could support. People would have 400 sites stacked together and then come in with the assumption that we should support their 100+ site network, for free, based on their hacks. It just wasn’t feasible, not even a little bit.

We have no problem pointing people to the old method on the rare occasion when we think its appropriate but the MSM solves very real issues, very elegantly and its the only one we recommend.

I bring this up Ronnie because I know the solution may work well for you but I would caution you against recommending without really investigating what someone wants to accomplish. People may take your recommendation in ways you don’t anticipate and what you thought was advice meant to save someone a few bucks turns into advice that has locked someone into an unsupported method that they’ve built business critical websites on.

Bingo, Leslie: “business critical” is exactly my situation, and thank you Lisa for pointing out some of the other time- and frustration-saving features.

People would have 400 sites stacked together and then come in with the assumption that we should support their 100+ site network, for free, based on their hacks. It just wasn’t feasible, not even a little bit.

Gawd! Give people an inch and they take a mile.

We have no problem pointing people to the old method on the rare occasion when we think its appropriate but the MSM solves very real issues, very elegantly and its the only one we recommend.

Which makes it an excellent choice for “commercial” sites that require the extra features and the immediacy of support. I prefer MSM for clients who have multiple sites that require integrated management, and the bells and whistles. The MSM price tag is an absolute bargain compared to the cost of hacking…

...I know the solution may work well for you but I would caution you against recommending without really investigating what someone wants to accomplish. People may take your recommendation in ways you don’t anticipate and what you thought was advice meant to save someone a few bucks turns into advice that has locked someone into an unsupported method that they’ve built business critical websites on.

And the ONLY place where I run non-MSM is on a few of my own sites with related theme content (which makes life easier), but never recommend it for a client. As much as I like billable hours, I tend to avoid the short cuts that eventually lead to more problems than the billable hours are worth.