DISQUS

Connected Internet: Site Growth And Hosting Options

  • Smackall · 1 year ago
    Please correct the url
  • Pete · 1 year ago
    I currently use shared hosting for my World War II Database website http://ww2db.com , it is working well, but I know exactly what you're talking about. If someone ever writes sloppy code, then my site could effectively go down for a couple of hours, depriving my users of service and also take away my revenues.

    However, the site's popularity, despite already being beyond my expectations, still does not demand dedicated hosting. So for now, Dreamhost ( http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?61672 ) will just have to do...
  • Jalaj · 1 year ago
    Shared hosting do sucks,
    but not when you cannot shell out extra bucks.
  • Bruce · 1 year ago
    Not all shared hosting providers suck. I'm with WebFaction ( http://www.webfaction.com ) and AFAICT there are only 100 sites on my server. Yes, it's still quite a few but the server is very beefy so it's still really fast.
    I'd say that if you want to avoid sharing the machine with 500 or so other people you just need to stay away from the big oversellers who promise hundreds of GBs of storage for less than $10 a month.
  • Jawwad · 1 year ago
    I am using the Freehostia shared hosting but although I have brand new blog with not heavy traffic for now but still I am not satisfied with the slow performance and also have downtime every other day for unknown reason. I can only hope that they will improve their service. Nevertheless this an informative article to explore the different options.
  • Nish Vamadevan · 1 year ago
    Most professional shared hosting providers gives the customer their own IP address... So only downside I see is, One / Some customers abusing the server resources which would affect the entire users on the particular server...

    As long as the server is constantly monitored and well looked after, I don't see a problem with hosting a low end site on Share Hosting.
  • Mark from Bloglyne · 1 year ago
    Yeah, I have thought about doing some dedicated hosting... but I would actually have to have enough traffic to justify it *grins*
  • Bacon · 1 year ago
    I use WebHostingPad and I love it. Great service and support from them, too.
  • Micah · 1 year ago
    I've had pretty good luck with my shared hosting. I went with a very reputable company, and bought their upper end package so maybe that had something to do with it. Now, I wouldn't mind a dedicated server. :)
  • John Pickering · 1 year ago
    I think that if you're running a 'for profit' business then you shouldn't scrimp on hosting.
    It's a bit like setting up a bricks & morter shop - but expecting to pay market stall prices - leave your stock on the table and it's probably going to be damaged or gone by the morning. You usually get what you pay for, it just gets me down that dedicated hosting in the UK is so much more than US based..
  • Coolest games · 1 year ago
    WHT Forums are the best..they have huge resources ..just search their valuable archives you will get almost any info on hosting
  • Security Software · 1 year ago
    I've never use VPS or dedicated server since my blogs just have little traffic. FindMyHosting is my fav site to find the right web hosting package for me ;)
  • bert · 1 year ago
    I've run some shared hosting on godaddy.com but stopped. There were other sites on the same server that ran resource hungry scripts and halted traffic to my site.

    Im on mediatemple.net now. Never looking back
  • Zath · 1 year ago
    I have wanted one of these forever! THANKS for the great work
  • keikun17 · 1 year ago
    what's the decent spec for a 50 usd hosting?
  • Michael Lankton · 1 year ago
    $50 will usually get you a Celeron, but if you look around you can do better.

    Taking a quick look at some of the usual suspects,
    $49.95 2.0GHZ P4 512mb ram 60gb hdd 2000gb bandwidth 5 ip addresses
    $39.95 3.0GHz Celeron 512mb ram 80gb hdd 800gb bandwidth 2 ip addresses

    I would take the celeron for $40, pay an extra $10/month for an additional gig of ram, and you would be good to go for a while.
  • Velvet Blues · 1 year ago
    A good shared host is HostGator. Another is BlueHost, which claims to provide unlimited bandwidth. However, I sincerely doubt that they would service a high-traffic website.

    Read Velvet Blues's latest blog post....Cuil is Corny>>>
  • Michael Lankton · 1 year ago
    actually bluehost is a good example of the bad shared host, hostican is another

    800+ sites per server and lots of excessive resource shutdowns if you have any real traffic

    there are shared hosts that charge less, have better network performance and only put around 300 sites on their servers

    3 recommendations: hawkhost, a small orange, downtownhost

    Read Michael Lankton's latest blog post....On Hiatus>>>