Multi Ghost Install Club (Money saving club)

Hello Ghosties. I hope you are well.

First off, Ghost is great and really enjoy using is and shout out to Bright Themes… Turbo for the user experience.

I wanted to post and ask others to offer some help where running Multiple Ghost installs on DO droplets.

Does anyone have a detailed way to install multiple installs on 1 instance on DO?

I think this would be most beneficial to smaller operators as Ghost dosent work so well on the 6 dollar droplet and from the content producing side and it would be more cost effective to run a larger server than small and slow servers.

I have read a lot of documentation online to do it, but there are many permission problems, port problems, and nginx problems. It seems Ghost like to just live in its own house alone. Not good on the money making side.

1 Like

I am pretty much doing this for Magic Pages. One big and powerful server, many Ghost instances (with enough performance buffer).

The simplest and most straightforward way for me is running the Ghost instances in Docker Compose stacks, combining both the Ghost container and one for the MySQL database. This way, I only need to expose a single port for every Ghost instance, which I can then map to domain names through an NGINX reverse proxy (mine runs on a different server, but you could easily do it on the same server as well).

Hey Jannis. Thank you for that.

I am going to research this and give it a go…

I am reading your website. https://magicpages.co/ pretty cool.

I can see that with carful server management this looks great. I use cloudways for some things and they have a good bot protection/manager in there. How to reduce calls on the server from unwanted traffic? I am still a learner here so i am no sure if that is a valid question or not.

Cheers

For Magic Pages (just the main website so far, not the customer websites yet) I am using BunnyCDN, which does a good job reducing traffic to the server.

I have also had a bot that crawled the site every hour a few weeks ago and was able to block it with BunnyCDN – but generally speaking, any content delivery network should be able to help with that.

Thats cool.

So I have been playing with Netifly. And I like to think out plans to solve problems.

It would be cool to run a ghost service where customers can login and make and account connect their domain like so and then each account generates the api key to connect to Gatsby + Ghost on netlify so when customers product content it can push to where their actual domain is living in netlify and then use their network to host the static file. Still new here. But ghost is big and probably too big for the average user.

https://ghost.org/integrations/netlify/

https://www.gatsbyjs.com/starters/TryGhost/gatsby-starter-ghost

Seeing as we are talking about reducing costs

I am not entirely sure what you’re asking, sorry :smiley:

I wasnt really saying anything other than just spinning off ideas.

Haha alright, got it

I really like the ghost systme but i feel it is a little heavy.

Like people move off wordpress to for clearner and faster options. Ghost is that but when it comes to hosting and things like this then the creative elements are not there. So if a creater who is a little bit of a developer like me wants to create many things then the costs adds up.

In what sense? Most self-hosters I know have either spun up a 5$ DigitalOcean droplet or gotten a cheap-ish VPS somewhere else.

I don’t see any other direct cost related with running Ghost as a self-hoster, given that Mailgun also has a free tier (altough it’s hidden – search the forum if you need it).

A domain name, perhaps? But you’d have that with WordPress as well.

I am in south america and some of my sites service South American people. So some different options so I think i am have latency assume and a larger droplet works well. The small droplet does work well for me here. I have tried a few different configurations and more ram works a lot better.

I am doing AWS solutions architect course and I will go to AWS SP and run the server locally there. I am not confident yet because AWS is massive and I can make a lot for errors.

Note: its not a problem for the user to request a page… its more a problem for me loading the site with content and editing from the backend.