Thread: Webuzo in large production environments

I'm looking for web hosting companies or web hosting server administrators that are using the Webuzo control panel within a large production environment. Specifically in regards to how well it performs at scale.

We've been investigating utilizing Webuzo internally. I'm currently a bit stalled due to the lack of configuration templates for various services.

But upon investigating this, I found that Webuzo rebuilds it's entire Apache VirtualHost file - /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf - every time a modification is necessary. If a new account is added, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. An account gets deleted, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. An account adds an addon domain, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. I have concerns over how well this scales.

It's one thing when you have one, two or maybe up to 50 VirtualHosts. But what happens if you have 1000 or 2000 VirtualHosts on the server? That constant rewriting of the /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf file would seem to start a performance hit. Especially when you factor in other processes that might be consuming CPU time in a real production server.

As we're not yet using Webuzo in production environments, we can't really test this at this scale. I'm not sure if there are a lot of Webuzo control panel hosts out there, and where they exist in terms of this level of scale, but I thought I would ask. Any Webuzo hosts out there with a significant number of accounts and VirtualHosts are you seeing any performance issues related to this full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf rewrite?

I'm not sure if there are a lot of Webuzo control panel hosts out there

Yes, there aren't many hosts out there who sells Webuzo Hosting because it's too new and might have some bugs.

You should report this bug to Webuzo team, they're very friendly and quick in fixing issues. They can also improve their control panel if we report them about bugs and might become a stable control panel.

I recommend contacting them directly regarding your concerns. They always listen to customers, especially if this affects the control panel's performance.

I'm not really sure if it affects performance - that's why I was asking here if anyone was using Webuzo in a large production environment.

It seems inefficient to me. I mean, the performance hit is probably negligible if you only have 5 or 10 VirtualHosts - or maybe even 100. But when you start talking about 1000+ VirtualHosts on a heavily used server - that just seems like it might affect performance. Its difficult to really get a real world performance sample in a test environment.

I have brought this to their attention and they said they would look into it, but it just kind of ended there.

There's a lot of things I like about Webuzo, but there's also a lot of areas that I think need some improvements - and I'm just not getting the general feel that there's a commitment to making those improvements. I guess that's the price that's paid when a panel struggles to get market share - but might be struggling to get market share because there's a lack of commitment.

I still think a forum where Webuzo users can communicate with other Webuzo users about issues, concerns, workarounds, fixes would be one way to grow Webuzo. But if the number of users using Webuzo is so low, then there may not be enough activity for a forum.

Originally Posted by SPaReK

There's a lot of things I like about Webuzo, but there's also a lot of areas that I think need some improvements - and I'm just not getting the general feel that there's a commitment to making those improvements. I guess that's the price that's paid when a panel struggles to get market share - but might be struggling to get market share because there's a lack of commitment.

Softaculous has been around for quite awhile and has several well known products (Softaculous Autoinstaller, Virtualizor, etc.).

The multi-user version of Webuzo is a recent addition to their product lineup and therefore it's not really fair to try to compare it apples to apples with other control panels that have been on the market for decades or more (i.e. cPanel, DirectAdmin) and expect it to have all the features and feature support that other control panels have worked decades to achieve.

Softaculous -from what I've seen- is working really hard to make Webuzo a serious contender as a complete cPanel replacement.

I honestly don't think there is a lack of commitment though, I think they are just being bombarded with hosts wanting to use Webuzo and those hosts are continuously asking to add support for this, that, etc.

I give them 6 months to a year and then I think we'll be having a completely different conversation regarding Webuzo.

Originally Posted by ResellerWiz

I honestly don't think there is a lack of commitment though, I think they are just being bombarded with hosts wanting to use Webuzo and those hosts are continuously asking to add support for this, that, etc.

I give them 6 months to a year and then I think we'll be having a completely different conversation regarding Webuzo.

Oh, I agree. All the more reason I would like to see a forum or some type of centrally located user interaction hub. Are they being bombarded with the same requests over and over again? Do other users have ideas on how to work around a certain issue? What functionality development needs to be focused on?

It just helps with transparency if discussion is a bit more open.

I do agree that Webuzo certainly looks the part as a serious contender as a complete cPanel replacement. But unfortunately the needle with Webuzo hasn't moved enough in the time frame that we needed it to and we have had to turn to other alternatives. We still hope to revisit Webuzo at some point, perhaps it will be a bit more mature at that point.

Originally Posted by SPaReK

Oh, I agree. All the more reason I would like to see a forum or some type of centrally located user interaction hub. Are they being bombarded with the same requests over and over again? Do other users have ideas on how to work around a certain issue? What functionality development needs to be focused on?

It just helps with transparency if discussion is a bit more open.

I do agree that Webuzo certainly looks the part as a serious contender as a complete cPanel replacement. But unfortunately the needle with Webuzo hasn't moved enough in the time frame that we needed it to and we have had to turn to other alternatives. We still hope to revisit Webuzo at some point, perhaps it will be a bit more mature at that point.

I absolutely agree that having a forum where users can easily communicate issues and resolutions is a must.

They did mention previously a forum and better documentation was on their to-do list, so hopefully it is something we'll see in early 2023.

The softaculous team introduced Webuzo years ago, and even InterServer tried selling Webuzo VPS, but things didn't go well. This panel was fully loaded with unreliable features, I personally gave this panel to some of our clients, then later had to change back to CyberPanel because of Crashes and unnecessary resource consumption.

Honestly I am afraid to trust them again

Originally Posted by SPaReK

I'm looking for web hosting companies or web hosting server administrators that are using the Webuzo control panel within a large production environment. Specifically in regards to how well it performs at scale.

We've been investigating utilizing Webuzo internally. I'm currently a bit stalled due to the lack of configuration templates for various services.

But upon investigating this, I found that Webuzo rebuilds it's entire Apache VirtualHost file - /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf - every time a modification is necessary. If a new account is added, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. An account gets deleted, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. An account adds an addon domain, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. I have concerns over how well this scales.

It's one thing when you have one, two or maybe up to 50 VirtualHosts. But what happens if you have 1000 or 2000 VirtualHosts on the server? That constant rewriting of the /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf file would seem to start a performance hit. Especially when you factor in other processes that might be consuming CPU time in a real production server.

As we're not yet using Webuzo in production environments, we can't really test this at this scale. I'm not sure if there are a lot of Webuzo control panel hosts out there, and where they exist in terms of this level of scale, but I thought I would ask. Any Webuzo hosts out there with a significant number of accounts and VirtualHosts are you seeing any performance issues related to this full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf rewrite?

Don't think there are many Webuzo users out there. So the best option would be to check with the product support team on this and see what their claim is when you have large number of VirtualHosts.

Originally Posted by *******

The softaculous team introduced Webuzo years ago, and even InterServer tried selling Webuzo VPS, but things didn't go well. This panel was fully loaded with unreliable features, I personally gave this panel to some of our clients, then later had to change back to CyberPanel because of Crashes and unnecessary resource consumption.

Honestly I am afraid to trust them again

I would like to gently refute this. As far as I am aware Interserver is a client and has many license with us. Also back then it was v2 and a single user and had limited use cases. We would love you to try Webuzo v3 and see for yourself if it's fit for hosting or not. We would be happy to issue you some trial license as well.

Originally Posted by SPaReK

I'm looking for web hosting companies or web hosting server administrators that are using the Webuzo control panel within a large production environment. Specifically in regards to how well it performs at scale.

We've been investigating utilizing Webuzo internally. I'm currently a bit stalled due to the lack of configuration templates for various services.

But upon investigating this, I found that Webuzo rebuilds it's entire Apache VirtualHost file - /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf - every time a modification is necessary. If a new account is added, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. An account gets deleted, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. An account adds an addon domain, the full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf gets rewritten. I have concerns over how well this scales.

It's one thing when you have one, two or maybe up to 50 VirtualHosts. But what happens if you have 1000 or 2000 VirtualHosts on the server? That constant rewriting of the /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf file would seem to start a performance hit. Especially when you factor in other processes that might be consuming CPU time in a real production server.

As we're not yet using Webuzo in production environments, we can't really test this at this scale. I'm not sure if there are a lot of Webuzo control panel hosts out there, and where they exist in terms of this level of scale, but I thought I would ask. Any Webuzo hosts out there with a significant number of accounts and VirtualHosts are you seeing any performance issues related to this full /usr/local/apps/apache2/etc/conf.d/webuzoVH.conf rewrite?

About the number of VirtualHost entries in 1 file. We haven't seen any issue with it. We have queueing in our tasking processes and we have many servers with 1000+ virtualhosts as well. Having a single file is efficient and does not cause any load as such. We have also added support for custom config files in the Apache config on a per domain and a per user basis :
IncludeOptional /var/webuzo-data/apache2/custom/users/USERNAME.conf
IncludeOptional /var/webuzo-data/apache2/custom/domains/DOMAIN_OR_SUBDOMAIN.conf

Loading a single file is easier for Apache. A single file concept is also used by many other control panels.

We will also be upgrading our forum soon.

Originally Posted by Brijesh-soft

I would like to gently refute this. As far as I am aware Interserver is a client and has many license with us. Also back then it was v2 and a single user and had limited use cases. We would love you to try Webuzo v3 and see for yourself if it's fit for hosting or not. We would be happy to issue you some trial license as well.

Are you from Softaculous itself? We tried to work with Webuzo before but didn't work so switched to DA and CyberPanel, I noticed team working hard these days

Originally Posted by *******

Are you from Softaculous itself? We tried to work with Webuzo before but didn't work so switched to DA and CyberPanel, I noticed team working hard these days

Yes I am a Manager for Softaculous and Webuzo. If you can get in touch with us we can make sure all your issue are resolved asap. You can contact us via Sales/Support channels.

Also how many months back did you try Webuzo ?

We Just started using Webuzo on our VPS servers. And we found it's working good. also giving trial to community members to make a test of webuzo. we found some issues on this panel but still it's good then others in the market. but also I waiting for enhance panel it will be a good panel to sell WordPress hosting.

Originally Posted by Hostever

We Just started using Webuzo on our VPS servers. And we found it's working good. also giving trial to community members to make a test of webuzo. we found some issues on this panel but still it's good then others in the market. but also I waiting for enhance panel it will be a good panel to sell WordPress hosting.

Hi, I am from the Webuzo team.

If you can share what issues you faced with Webuzo we can get it resolved asap.

It's something I've been interested in trying for production, but it's a fact that some clients are just automatically turned off when they learn that you're using a lesser-known control panel. It's much better now with DirectAdmin gaining more traction/popularity, however, I am unsure what the reception would be if we were to start offering Webuzo. Not a risk I would like to take at the moment especially with pricing that's very close to DA's.

As a DA user, here are a couple of things that would make me more enticed to switch to another panel:
- better pricing, although admittedly DA's cost is already quite competitive
- much more organized and detailed documentation for both admins and end-users; as it stands when you face odd issues with DA you'd usually have to scour their forums or their old docs for answers (or just figure it out yourself)

We are a small environment and have used Softaculous as long as I can remember - more than 10 years, they have always provided good products, good support and been reasonable with their pricing, I am not sure how anyone can fuss about paying $12 per year for Softaculous. Webuzo is new, but based on their reputation we are going to start migrating from cpanel to Webuzo and report back on how things go.

Originally Posted by Brijesh-soft

Hi, I am from the Webuzo team.

If you can share what issues you faced with Webuzo we can get it resolved asap.

Hi,
We have already planned on webuzo. And also created a community on FB about webuzo. And talked with Pulkit Brother on Linked In, I have connect also you, please check Mahamodul Hasan Khan from Hostever.

Mainly I found some issues & discussed with Junaid Miaje brother from Limda. We are working together to grow up with Webuzo. i will really happy if we connect together.

Some of the main issues on webuzo is Backup system. It's not organized. also it makes a single db backup file, it's should be changed to single by single. etc. can we discuss on private message?

Originally Posted by schmerold

We are a small environment and have used Softaculous as long as I can remember - more than 10 years, they have always provided good products, good support and been reasonable with their pricing, I am not sure how anyone can fuss about paying $12 per year for Softaculous. Webuzo is new, but based on their reputation we are going to start migrating from cpanel to Webuzo and report back on how things go.

Thank you for your update, we also want to start shared hosting with it, already we are providing VPS service with Webuzo.

Originally Posted by Hostever

Hi,
Some of the main issues on webuzo is Backup system. It's not organized. also it makes a single db backup file, it's should be changed to single by single. etc. can we discuss on private message?

We do plan on supporting JetBackups soon and also organize the backup system we have. Please expect it around the next 2-3 weeks.

Regards

Originally Posted by alons

We do plan on supporting JetBackups soon and also organize the backup system we have. Please expect it around the next 2-3 weeks.

Regards

I think it's best to focus on your own backup system, not do what cPanel has done. Their backup system is not that good because you can't use rsync to backup/restore to/from a remote server via SSH/rsync. Many prefer to create backups using an official backup structure from the control panel itself.

Maybe add JetBackup support once Webuzo backup/restore is more feature-rich.

Originally Posted by HostXNow

I think it's best to focus on your own backup system, not do what cPanel has done. Their backup system is not that good because you can't use rsync to backup/restore to/from a remote server via SSH/rsync. Many prefer to create backups using an official backup structure from the control panel itself.

Maybe add JetBackup support once Webuzo backup/restore is more feature-rich.

I disagree. Adding support for a readymade product like JetBackup would be faster and most likely easier than enhancing their current backup system.

Adding support for JetBackup first and then continuing to work on their own backup system would make more sense to me.

Originally Posted by ResellerWiz

I disagree. Adding support for a readymade product like JetBackup would be faster and most likely easier than enhancing their current backup system.

Adding support for JetBackup first and then continuing to work on their own backup system would make more sense to me.

That's fine also, as long as they get around to their own after some time, not like cPanel.

Cannot restore backups using Google Drive or S3, only FTP with compressed backups.

Originally Posted by HostXNow

That's fine also, as long as they get around to their own after some time, not like cPanel.

Cannot restore backups using Google Drive or S3, only FTP with compressed backups.

I agree, the built-in backup system needs a lot of work, but I think getting JetBackup integrated with Webuzo would be a quicker solution to at least allow admins to backup to remote locations using incremental backups and then they can continue to work on improving the built-in system afterward for those that don't want to use JetBackup.

We've started offering Webuzo and DA to our existing VPS customers as part of the move from Centos 7 > Alma/Rocky and the consensus from our non-technical users is that they much prefer Webuzo to DirectAdmin purely because it feels very familiar to cPanel.

It got me thinking that the similarities could well cause them a problem down the line if cPanel's lawyers ever try to go after them. I'm not suggesting they have copied any of the code base, I'm sure they haven't, but there are striking similarities to how everything is laid out right down to the exact same wording of some of the features.

Originally Posted by HostXNow

That's fine also, as long as they get around to their own after some time, not like cPanel.

Cannot restore backups using Google Drive or S3, only FTP with compressed backups.

The best way for them and any other control panel to handle back ups - is to provide tools to conform a backup however the server administrator sees fit.

What is the largest part of a web hosting account? Largely this is the account's home directory - where it contains all of the website files and all of the emails. I'd say that this is large 90% of the account's backup if it's included in the backup. The user's home directory can also very easily be rsync'd to another server. Since usually very little changes, just transferring the deltas can be a huge savings.

But you still need something that can easily be created and contains everything else pertaining to the account - such that this file could be restored and give the same account and directory structure of the account at the time that the backup was taken.

This is what I propose the backup system be - and I'd propose it for every control panel out there. Start small and then add on to it.

What files are completely necessary to recreate the account with it's state at the time of the backup?

Do you want to add the account's home directory to that backup tar package? Then include a parameter or switch that could tell the backup script to do that.

Do you want to add the account's database dumps in the backup tar package? Then include a parameter or switch that could tell the backup script to do that.

What other aspects can you forego but add with a parameter or switch?

Chances are most backups are probably going to run with a lot of these parameters and switches enabled, but the point is they wouldn't have to. If I'm going to back up the home directories and database dumps, etc separately - then this provides me the option to do that. On the restore side I'll have to handle the restore of those separate entities on my own - but I'm given the flexibility to do so.