Thread

I’m sure there is already a deluge of questions around the new MSM. I have had a look through the knowledge base that is already building up to see if I could answer my question…

I understand that you can install a Personal Licence edition of EE and a Multi Site Manager on on domain, wich can then manage 2 other domains. What I can’t quite see - which may be due to low caffeine levels today - is how this actually manages those other 2 sites.

Do all 3 sites need to reside on the same web server?

Also, to run off 1 installation of EE - what files (if any) need to be placed on the root directories of the other 2 domains?

Greetings, Hanabi!

All 3 (well, however many you have, it can be many more than 3!) sites do, indeed, need to reside on the same server and will be managed within the same database.  Handling of those sites is done via a drop-down tab to the left of the Publish tab.

I think that most of your questions would be best answered by both watching the video and reading through the documentation.  For instance, the setup domains and sub-domains answers your questions on which files you’ll need to manage your other domains. 

I hope that helps to answer your questions, post back if you have more. =)

I’m not looking to get MSM yet, but no doubt will in the future.

I found myself reading this thread and thinking, pondering, and I’m still a bit confused. The video didn’t deal with installation, and the manual wasn’t specific on this.

Say a site has:

PUBLIC_HTML
    - path.php
    - index.php
    - system
    - (usual EE folders)

Under “Setup Domains and Sub-domains” in the manual it says: “Copy an existing Site’s path.php and index.php (the ones from your main directory, not from the system directory) files into the directory from which you wish to access your new Site.”

Does this mean you create a new directory inside PUBLIC_HTML to hold just these two files?

Hi, Paris—

Much of this depends on your host.  For instance, I am on EngineHosting.  I have two domains:

lisajill.net
example.com

I want example.com to be a completely different Site, under the MSM - so I ask EngineHosting to set this up for me.  It goes like this - they create a directory under public_html called example.

So my main site is in public_html and my secondary site is in public_html/example.

Now I copy index.php and path.php into example.  Set it up as per the rest of the instructions.

In some cases the directory might instead be alongside public_html, say example_html.  Different hosts handle this differently - what is important is that all of these be able to access the main site’s control panel.  Your host should be able to confirm that for you.

I hope I haven’t confused the issue too much, let me know if I can clarify at all. =)

I’d also copy over admin.php for launching the back end from the secondary site.

I am on Dreamhost for my web hosting, so I am assuming something like this…

When I login via ftp I see the following:

domain1.com
domain2.com
domain3.com

My initial EE installation would be in domain1.com. On Dreamhost there are no sub folders such as Public_html. So I would copy index.php and path.php directly into the folders for domain2.com and domain3.com.

That sounds about right, Hanabi.  I am not that famliar with DH’s setup though I administer a site on one of their servers - it’s a very, very simple site.  As long as they allow access from those different folders you shouldn’t have a problem.

Ah, I get it. Thanks, Lisa.

We’re on EngineHosting, too, so it won’t be a problem when the time comes.

Hanabi,

I run multiple EE sites off of one installation, using the “old way”, on Dreamhost. There’s no problem at all doing that as long as all your sites are running as the same user (and therefore in the same folder, as you’re describing). Just copy the path.php and index files into the other folders. I presume that works for the new way, with MSM, as well. 

(Me, i’m sticking to the old way for now; i don’t see any compelling reasons to upgrade, frankly. There are a couple neat features, but there are also at least 249 unnecessary drawbacks, from my point of view.)

—Adrienne

Adrienne doesn’t mention what those “neat” features are. And though Adrienne may not find them compelling, a lot of people do, so here are the key differences between the Classic way and the Multiple Site Manager. This way you can make an informed decision.

The Multiple Site Manager gives you:

1. True separation of Sites. This means individual Site preferences. This is the key feature because it means that everything between Sites is separate which allows you to, for example, have completely different Site templates (like Login templates, system messages, member profiles, registration pages…).

2. It also allows you to set individual Member Group preferences per Site. So for example, when a person registers at Site C, then can automatically be put into the Site C member group with their own set of permissions.

3. You can run forums on a per-Site basis that again, allows complete separation between Sites.

4. This is the only officially supported method to run multiple sites. The classic method still works, but its community support only.

Of course, its not for everybody and there are certainly situations where the classic method will work just fine.

The critical key is if you need true separation between Sites or whether having two sites “sort of” separated works for you. Most people who run multiple internet properties, especially when there are communities for each, prefer the separation. The pricing is friendly. Think of it this way. A single Commercial site costs $249. You can run 2 additional Sites for only $199. Each Site there after is only $49 each. Say you had to run 5 Sites. In the past, truly separate Sites would have cost you $249 for each Site because to achieve true separation of those Sites you’d need 5 installations, roughly $1000. If you include the Forums, the cost goes up because you would have had to purchase a separate forum license for each site as well.

With the Multiple Site Manager you can run 5 Sites off a single installation for just $550. So not only do you save about half the price of 5 separate installations, you get the convenience of running them from a single Control Panel. This will save significant time with upgrades, maintenance, etc.. In short, its money well spent if you want to run separate sites from a single Control Panel and save your self a lot of time and effort. Plus you get the tech support you need.

The classic method never replaced the need for separate installations because you can’t really create independent sites that still work together. You can get part of the way there, which is great for some situations, but it wasn’t a real multiple site solution.

The best part is that you’re not restricted to one or the other. You’re free to choose which one works best for your project.

Leslie,

Fair enough. I’m afraid i’ve been inclined to be a bit snarky on this—i’m frustrated with the pricing decision that EllisLab has made on this. As i remarked elsewhere, i DO understand it, but i’m still frustrated. Because of that, i’m willing to live without the features it gets me—especially since they’re definitely on the level of “gravy” for me. Membership, for instance, is not really an issue, as i don’t currently run any sites with membership or forums (though if any come up, obviously i’d at least look into getting the Manager for those). It’d be nice to have some of the nice control panel features, but i’ll deal with my current setup for now.

And yes, the pricing is “friendly”, IF you’re making the money to justify it. Me, i run three personal sites and a shop that hasn’t opened yet (and therefore isn’t making any money) off of my personally-owned Commercial license. And yes, i bought the Commercial license because it was the right thing to do—i AM planning to be selling things from this one site, as soon as i can manage to get in gear (in my copious free time!) But it doesn’t seem “friendly” to me that i’d have to pay $249 plus the higher per-site fee, given that three of my four sites have nothing to do with the business. Understandable? Yeah, perfectly. But not “friendly”.

Also, i do think that a lot of the backlash you’re getting on this one, from both me and other people, is future fear rather than anything related to the present moment. I understand that the old way works, and will continue to work for now, albeit without official support. But will i be unable to upgrade to 2.0 without paying an extra several hundred dollars? That’s the part that makes ME nervous. It has unpleasant overtones of what 6A/Moveable Type did some years back with their licensing (though please note that i’m NOT comparing the two situations—their terms were MUCH less friendly than yours have EVER been. They also later backed down, and almost no one remembers the whole flap at this point.)

And on all of this, don’t get me wrong: i am a loyal EE customer. I will continue to be. If i didn’t love the product, love the company, and think all of you guys were great, i wouldn’t BOTHER to criticize—i’d just formulate an exit strategy. (The which i’m NOT doing—i just bid out two more EE-based jobs over the last couple of weeks!) But i want you to KNOW when i’m unhappy. You may decide not to do anything about it, but i believe it’s important to give you the data point—and i suspect a lot of the other people who are criticizing this are doing so because they feel the same way. You guys are known for LISTENING, and that’s one of your big strengths. That doesn’t mean you’ll change anything, and i get that—but it’s good to know that we’ll be HEARD.

And none of that is germane to what i was trying to tell Hanabi, which is that Dreamhost DOES support everything EE needs to run multiple sites off one install, and i’m assuming that still holds true when using the MSM. 😊

Adrienne

Adrienne -  its was actually risky for us to release the Multi-site manager as an integrated system.  Why?  Because we are giving EE users a means of doing something with one installation that previously required more then one installation. 

In other words, there is the very real possibility that we might make less money now then before, so if anything, we could have priced the MSM much higher then we did.  Plus, one can argue that the convenience of managing multiple sites is in fact worth more money.

But we didn’t do that.  We priced it quite modestly.  Basically for the price of two EE licenses you can now manage three sites.  And as you add additional sites, since each instance is much cheaper, the overall price goes way down.

I understand your displeasure that we are charging for the MSM.  But you are only looking at it from your perspective, not both of our perspectives.  You want an inexpensive product.  Fair enough.  But unless we can generate enough revenue to develop and support it there won’t be a product in the first place.

We have always approached our pricing decisions based on what is best for BOTH our users and us.  We need to fund our development, our tech support, and our general business expenses.  But we also need to provide a great product at a fair price that most people can afford.  I think we manage to straddle that line pretty well.

Hi Adrienne,

You’re certainly welcome to express your opinion and you’re absolutely right, we do listen. I much prefer your 2nd post with your concerns over snarkiness though. I can’t really address “snarky” without sounding like a defensive jerk 😊

But I can address specific concerns. I don’t want to turn the pre-sales forum into an extended discussion over future plans, but let me summarize in an effort to address some of the issues you bring up.

EE 2.0 - It’s still a long way off and we’ve made no decisions as to pricing or upgrade fees, etc… Whatever happens with 2.0, we’ll certainly let people know ahead of time and I think if you look at our company track record, we’re solid when it comes to treating people fairly.

Rick recently blogged about ExpressionEngine turning three and in that post he points out that the EE public beta had 10 modules and the current version has 24 plus the MSM Expansion. Of those 14 modules we’ve developed since launch, only 1 was sold separately (the forums). EE 1.6 has 50+ features that come directly from feature requests and includes a new module free. In other words, the vast majority of what we do people benefit from without paying extra for. I don’t see that changing in our future. For example, the Discussion Forums just hit version 2.0 and we did not charge an upgrade fee. The Discussion forums also now supports multiple forums for free.

I know for your specific situation MSM is not an affordable option for you, but if you step back a moment, I hope you see that EE 1.6 lets you do things better without spending another dime. MSM is certainly “gravy” but even without it, 1.6 has a whole bunch of stuff to make your online life tasty. There will certainly be other premium things in EE’s future because a large part of our audience needs that gravy so to speak. And as you point out, we listen to people, including those that ask for premium solutions. But I think 1.6 shows that premium additions don’t come at the expense of typical EE development.

If you have follow up to this I’d ask that you .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) so we can let this thread return to its normal course.

Thanks!

Just to bring this thread back on topic (and because I’m tearing my hair out!).

I have two domains (http://www.newstartmag.co.uk and www.intelligentcommissioning.co.uk) pointing at the same server space, and I have EE and MSM installed.

newstartmag.co.uk is actually a reference that I set up (it’s currently being used on another server - this will change once the new site is built) and will only work if I alter my hosts file, but the other one is live.

I cannot for the life of me get http://www.intelligentcommissioning.co.uk to work through MSM. I’ve followed the instructions on the website, but am always being pointed back to the “default” installation (http://www.newstartmag.co.uk).

I’ve tried everything I can think of. I’ve changed the path settings in the file, the settings in general configuration - everything! And nothing seems to work. if I type url to the folder in by hand, it does work, but that’s not much use.

the intelligentcommissioning site’s files are in a subfolder called “intelligent”.

Does anyone have any ideas? I’m worried I’ve just spent a lot of my clients’ money for something that might not work! I’m sure I’m just overlooking something, but I’ve followed the (rather slim) documentation to the letter!

dasgrafik, I split your post to technical support as it is not appropriate in this thread or the pre-sales forum.  I have already responded there, as well, so please head over there for further assistance. Thank you! =)