|
While I disagree that all shared hosts oversell (I don't), I would agree that there are a bunch of them out there that do have that as their business model. Anything 'unlimited' is bogus. Everything has limits, and those limits are sometimes easily reached. In fact, it was that exact reasoning why I was kicked out of Dreamhost in 1999 or so for my personal site (too many MySQL "conqueries") and why I created my own company. If anyone wants to 'ask a webhost' why we do what we do, fire away. I've ran the gamut of services from dedicated servers to full cabinet colocation, and am currently deploying individual colocated servers across the US. I'm not sure where this thread wants to go, but I'm glad to see it. Edit: some evidence that not all shared hosts are evil.. If all users used up 100% of their allocated storage, they would be able to use 2.45TB. They are currently using 1.2TB. I have around 5TB of storage between my servers (hardware RAID6 250GB or 320GB SATA, 8 drives per chassis). Similar story with transfer: they could use up to 24.77TB of bandwidth. They used only 3.6TB last month. I have 30TB available. I run out of CPU /way/ before disk and transfer is reached. I run 8 drive RAID6 to keep up with IO demands. I would love to use SAS but too much cost per GB. My current servers are dual socket Opteron, six-core 2425HEs in my newest deployment, 16GB RAM on each. optikalus fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Apr 8, 2010 |
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
DNova posted:optikalus: which host are you? AngryHosting It all boils down to the CPU(s) and power supply efficiency. If it is a single CPU box with a fairly efficient PSU, 1A should be more than enough. If it is one of those old Paxville Xeons (165w TDP), good luck. Yes, 95th percentile billing can be scary, especially if you're on a low commit with a high data rate port (ie. 10mbit on a 1gbit). You'll probably never see that, though. You're not going to be able to set the port less than 10mbit. 95th percentile over a 30 day span only allows 1.5 days over the commit. For a 2mbit commit on a 10mbit circuit, you could use up all your bandwidth in 6 days (618GB), but you'd be billed for 10mbit. For lower bandwidth commitments, I would recommend standard usage metering or fixed commitments (ie. 10mbit on a 10mbit port) instead of 95th percentile.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
DNova posted:unmeteredservers.com pricing actually seems pretty good, but I wish they had colocation as an option. I'd rather provide my own hardware. Where would you like to house your gear? I know most of the cheaper colos in the US that do single-server colocation. Also, what's your budget?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
DNova posted:As close to Buffalo, NY as possible, ideally. Budget is low, $50-80/mo, depending on where it is and what I'm getting. I can't vouch for them, but turnkeyinternet.net has a special (for WHT) for $60/mo in NY with 2TB transfer up to 2U: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=939765 Natcoweb is in a SAS70 facility in Jersey and they seemed like good guys; eager to make a sale. $65/mo for 1U w/ 1A, 10mbit on 100mbit port. http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=939455 I can vouch for Ubiquityservers, but only their LA facility (I must have got them at a bad time because it took a week for them to unbox and rack my server -- should have just driven it up myself). Their network is quite good, so far very happy with them. WHT has been *the* place to find good deals on single-server colocation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Rufo posted:I'm looking for people to share a dedicated server in the Netherlands with. Split 8 ways, you'd get a VPS with 512mb ram, gigabit uplink, and a tonne of traffic for about €13/mo. That is a great way to share the costs, but just make sure you leave some RAM for the dom0 and adjust the cron.daily entries so that all the domUs don't try to logrotate at the exact same time. This will *destroy* your single SATA drive and basically make the server unusable at 4AM.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
Arcana posted:Where is SA hosted? I seem to remember this huge story/thread about how this site stayed up through most of Hurricane Katrina, and its hosted there in New Orleans... They're currently with Steadfast Networks out of Chicago. They used to be with Zipa in New Orleans (they appear to have moved in 2006).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Arcana posted:I'm currently torn between Hostgator and Steadfast...Hostgator says they have a 250,000 i-node limit per shared account...which apparently counts for files and emails? vBulletin alone is like 7,000 files...so I'm not sure whether thats a reasonable limit or not. Steadfast is looking pretty good, hell its good enough for SA right? SA has their own servers and just uses Steadfast's colocation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
Arcana posted:Well, I miscalculated my stats...I'm using about 5-7 Gb of bandwidth per day, not per month...that's pretty significant eh? That seems more in line with the usage stats you quoted before. You probably want to check out how much load on the SQL server you place, as that would be the first thing a new host will notice. Some hosts have limits on SQL utilization; some don't. I host several high-volume message boards (almost all car related), and just have to make sure that they're not all on the same servers, as they wreak havoc on the databases (VBB doesn't give a poo poo about your SQL server heh) I also have my own fairly high traffic forum, but I wrote it from scratch and paid much attention to eliminating live database queries. It'll all depend on what software you run and how it is configured, and a lesser extent what mods you have installed.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
shablamoid posted:You also have to take into account that 99.9% uptime is about a day and a half of downtime a year. Actually 8 3/4 hours if my math is correct. Still a ridiculous amount of downtime.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
Xythar posted:Maybe on places that offer you "unlimited" hosting, but I should think that on a webhost where you pay for a set amount of bandwidth per month then it shouldn't be their business at all what you use that bandwidth for, provided it's not illegal. And its why you should run from any host that offers unlimited anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
Xythar posted:Define "low-end". I can't imagine the more reputable VPS providers would have that reputation (or any customers) if they were known to randomly pull the accounts of customers without warning just because they were close to, but not in excess of, their advertised limits. That's crazytown. Xythar posted:I mean, publishing the actual limits necessary for the service to be profitable, contacting people to let them know their resource usage is too high and suggesting they upgrade their plan? Fine. Even contacting someone say a month in advance to let them know that they can't offer the service anymore would be more believable than just wiping your data without warning. It's really only applicable to the 'unlimited' BS hosts. Back to shared hosting, if they don't outright cancel you, they'll just make it uncomfortable for you to be there.. ie. making up new things to charge you for ala Dreamhost. I have been shared hosting business since 1999, and have never dropped or disconnected a user because they were using more than they were paying for -- let alone using less than they're paying for but more than I'd like. I've upgraded hardware and moved datacenters because of individual customer's usage needs. Obviously, I'm not the norm, but there are good shared hosts out there that you need not worry about whether or not your site will still be up if it becomes popular.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 14:21
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Usually a VPS will smoke shared hosting The only reason for VPS over shared is getting to run your own services. I have yet to see a VPS be able to come anywhere near the performance of my servers.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Well, you do get full access to the server, which can be good or bad, depending on what you want and if you have someone to admin the box for you (if you can't) You keep saying this, but it just isn't true in my experience. Way smaller margins on VPS than shared hosting, so VPS hardware just isn't as good, and usually way more oversold. People usually get VPS because they're going to beat on it and don't want to pay for a full dedicated. I would say that the majority of VPS users use their services way more than a typical shared hosting customer.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I've never had even 'decent' performance from a big shared host (speaking from GoDaddy, Powweb, and Web.com from the top of my head) Those are notoriously bad shared hosts.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 07:09
|
|
|
stizu posted:I just wanted to chime in to say that I just started an account with Angryhosting and got a domain through them as well. This is my first experience with webhosting and the setup was relatively painless. One thing that I would like to have seen is some sort of list of links on how to get started, especially since you are offering $1/month rate that would attract all sorts of inexperienced people. The welcome email usually provides all the information most people need, but yes, I've been working on a new control panel for the last year or so and included with that is a in-depth help system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
stizu posted:Well, uh, I didn't get a welcome email. While searching for it I did find the email from angrydomains in the junk folder (mail.app). I will send an email to you guys to request a welcome email. AngryDomains is actually a GoDaddy reseller. I've just got all the prices as cheap as they'll let me set them, which keeps going up and up unfortunately  I used to be able to beat their own prices by almost a buck, but no more.There has been problems with some of the more overzealous filters due to us allowing people to forward their mail. We can't obviously not allow people to forward mail, but when they forward even if we use SpamAssassin to flag/defang their junk, the dumber filters don't differentiate us from the spammers This has been annoying me to no end recently, and I've been considering a few options: disallow forwarding off-site (not really a good option); force spam to a new folder and not forward when forwarding (people wouldn't like this as ham would be a pain to get back especially if they haven't used IMAP before).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 07:42
|
|
|
stizu posted:I appreciate your answers. I kind of figured it was a godaddy thing when I kept getting the upsell popups. At least you get a cut, right? I'd rather not get a cut, though. When I originally created the reseller account, I was just getting enough to cover the $99/year agreement, which I was perfectly happy with. It is only about providing my customers cheap domains. Oh, to clarify, only the domain registrar is a reseller -- AngryHosting is on my own servers in datacenters in Los Angeles and Chicago.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Gelob posted:Anyone have services with SimpleCDN? Seems UK2 Group/Softlayer terminated all of their servers. Yikes. This is my nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
R1CH posted:That sucks, I was looking into ordering from them (100tb) tomorrow too. Any similar hosts that don't suck? Need a dual i7 CPU, 12+ GB RAM, dual HDDs, 6+ TB bandwidth and ideally some kind of backup solution and an SSD, hosted in US (East coast preferred). I've been using Ubiquty for almost a year for a couple of my colocated servers (Los Angeles and Chicago), but they also do dedicated server sales and have something close to what you're looking for. The only issue I've had with them is occasional network connectivity issues caused by another client on the same switch getting DDoS'd. They typically take care of this within 30 minutes, and it is pretty rare. Other than that, they've been great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
Is mydomain.com and server.mydomain.com the same IP address? If so, it shouldn't be timing out. You might have a firewall issue. Another way to get around ISPs blocking port 25 is by enabling the submission port (587). Make sure it is set up with the same rules as port 25 and you can use that instead.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
You can set your VirtualHost entries like: <VirtualHost *:80> </VirtualHost> and then <VirtualHost 1.2.3.4:443> </VirtualHost> for the SSL host. The other hosts will still answer on 443 because SSL binds to the IP address (and they'll have an invalid certificate warning), but it should load the default virtualhost (first virtualhost apache finds in the configs). If you create a virtualhost entry at the top of your list like: <VirtualHost *:443> ServerName 1.2.3.4:80 </VirtualHost> It should load that one since the ServerName doesn't match any valid *:443 vhosts, and you can point it to an error page if you want.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
orphean posted:Did I ever say they were? I guess you like having 800 A records for every subdomain since there's no chance the IP for the server will ever change for any reason right? :%s/1.1.1.1/2.2.2.2/ vs. having your resolver make two hits to the DNS servers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
Gnack posted:I've been with Dreamhost for a while now and I'm pretty happy with their shared hosting service. Lately though my site has been getting around 1500 hits a day but uses around 5.6gb a day. It may be unrelated but the site in question as well as the other sites on this same shared hosting account has become pretty unstable of late and I'm wondering whether the traffic on this site could be a contributing factor? ~170GB/mo is practically nothing. Any decent shared host should be more than able to easily handle that much traffic (assuming your account is rated for that amount of transfer). DreamHost isn't a decent shared host, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
DNova posted:Why do dedicated servers generally come with hard drives smaller than you can even buy anymore? From what I've seen, they're just consumer SATA drives and you'd think for what decent dedicated boxes cost they could throw in a $60 1tb hard drive. Most dedicated servers are just whitebox builds. They have to keep updating the RAM and CPU to stay competitive, but a drive is a drive. Plus, this gives them a way to make more money through upgrades.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
Emo Businessman posted:I more mean responsiveness when running commands that "do stuff". Compiling stuff takes a long time, updates take forever, starting a shell in a new screen buffer takes a second or two, quitting supervisorctl frequently takes upwards of a minute, that sort of thing. It doesn't make it unusable but it is annoying, and going from that to a snappy VPS is like night and day. What disk does your Atom server have? Many Atom-powered boxes are put into mini-small ITX chassis, and those have laptop harddrives. I have an Atom 330 mini-ITX box powering my backups, and it had /slow/ IO (especially when it had to swap due to being limited to 2GB RAM). I replaced the drive with a cheap Kingston 64GB SSD and it performs better than most entry-level servers now. In summary, check your disk IO and swap usage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
VerySolidSnake posted:Inmotion Hosting was hacked pretty bad today. All my sites have a huge "YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED" message on them, even sites that are still in development without a registered domain name. The hack happened at 4am and it is still not fixed. They shutdown their call center and live chat support, and now I'm in the dark. I had this happen a few years ago. I forget which package was the culprit, but it was a root privilege escalation vuln that required two parts to activate: a customer with a vulnerable PHP app (remote code execution / download), and the daemon which would run what it downloaded as root. The package simply created a index.html file in every directory (overwriting any files that already existed). I had to remove all the 'infected' files and then restore from backup. It was embarassing. That said, try just restoring the index for all your sites and see how it works. If your host isn't going to be 1000% more proactive with software updates, then definitely look for a new host.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 04:27
|
|
|
every posted:I have a quick htaccess question. RedirectMatch (.*)\.htm http://wherever/ RedirectMatch (.*)\.html http://wherever/ or to do it without the 302 (301 with RedirectMatch permanent) redirect: RewriteEngine On RewriteRule \.htm$ index.php RewriteRule \.html$ index.php
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Rufo posted:RewriteRule \.html?$ index.php Touche. Don't drink and create (efficient) regex.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
VerySolidSnake posted:I can't get mad at them for first telling me it was ok, then deleting the files without any notice? You guys are loving insane. You're not the first person to get this treatment from DH. I actually got into the biz after getting fed up with DH's poo poo. They have a long history of making 'problem' customers go away. No host should nuke content without at least a warning stating that you've got x-time to clean up your poo poo. Hopefully they can restore the content from backups for you, but they're dreamhost and they probably don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Seconding SuperCache. 12K hit isn't anything.. Are you getting bombed with spam comments?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
I think people are too control-panel-dependent these days. A control panel should just be for adding/managing your domains and other hosting-related stuff. To migrate hosts without special control panel functions, just do it like everyone has done it before cPanel or Plesk. Download a copy of your site with FTP (or SCP or FTPS or SFTP or whatever), then upload it to the new site via the same (or available) method. For database, use whatever database utility is available (phpMyAdmin, phpPgAdmin, command line, etc) to dump the database and use the same tool to import it. Obviously you may need to add everything to the control panel manually which can be tedious if you have lots of domains, emails, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
orphean posted:I have a dumb hosting question. Who in the world is the market for high-end unmanaged dedicated servers? I can't see how spending $300+ a month on a dedicated server makes any sense whatsoever. If that's affordable why not just buy a 1U and get it colo'ed somewhere for less money? CAPEX vs. OPEX (in some companies it is much more difficult to get approval for capital expenditures). Accounting would also have to handle depreciation and all that. Spares. If you're getting a high-end dedicated server, the company it is through will have to handle all RMA and hardware SLAs. If you're doing this on your own, you handle it. If something fails, you either need to have it handy or be able to get it locally. Waiting for a part to ship while your server is down would not be good times. If you were colocating your own hardware, you'd ideally want a redundant pair (or at least a cold spare).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
I think you're doing it the best way. If I could get away with it, I'd love to stop offering email services. Email isn't hard but it isn't trivial either. You're constantly worrying about deliverability (IPs on blacklists, thresholds, etc). You have to keep it relatively secure. You'll want SSL to make sure your passwords aren't transmitted across the wire in plain text. It's a lot of work to set up properly if it isn't part of your job responsibility.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
There is.. but you'd just have to create a script that pipes your message through your authenticated gmail smtp session. You'd have to define sendmail_path in your php.ini to point to this script. Writing the script would be more complicated than just installing the plugin 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
orphean posted:Rather than a script you could just setup postfix or qmail with qsmtp or whatever to relay mail through gmail. This has the advantage that local mail generated on the server can be handled by gmail too. Every so often I'll get an email from one of my servers letting me know one of my cronjobs has failed or whatever. You could, but I was just trying to give an option that would be easier. Setting up postfix with a relayhost to gmail requires outgoing TLS and setting up a SASL auth hash.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
That's just the MX record. The POP/IMAP servers may be something else. If you remember what you changed the nameservers *from*, just do a host lookup against those servers for mail.domain.com, then point the IMAP client to that IP. You could probably just choose any of NetSol's nameservers, though. If they resolve with some IP other than what your new nameservers resolve to, then you know that that IP is likely correct.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
It's a good little BSD box. My company has a couple of them in the datacenter for AV encoding for iTunes. Have never had any issues with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
I find it pretty funny how unanimous the anti-shared hosting bias is in this hosting thread especially since the consistent suggestion is self-managed VPS or servers. I know there are a ton of fly-by-night shared hosting providers out there, but all the goon run ones have been on that list for a long time. The only time I would ever recommend someone to VPS or a dedicated server is if they either 1) are capable and willing to manage it themselves or 2) they're paying a lot extra for either a dedicated management company to take care of it or they're leasing it from a competent managed hosting provider like rackspace or something. I don't see a problem with people recommending against shared-hosting providers for business items (though the majority of the traffic on my servers is business -- perhaps I'm the exception), but to recommend an unmanaged VPS or server is foolish.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
As a hosting provider, I don't even want to be hosting email. Trying to explain to customers why their messages aren't always delivered to people's inboxes is frustrating as hell. It was easy a while ago before webmail became an acceptable replacement to the POP/IMAP client. Now, with spam buttons so prominently displayed, people are accidentally flagging messages from recipients and wondering why they're no longer getting mail from that recipient. Yes, people use the spam button as a delete button since they both get the message off the screen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
River posted:Baffling. I can't complain, though! It is probably just writing to ram. What you typically want to do to test disk throughput is to have it generate a file that would be larger than physical memory (2x is a good measure).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 06:42
|
|