Searching \ for '[OT] Web hosting recommendations sought' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=web+hosting+recommendations
Search entire site for: 'Web hosting recommendations sought'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Web hosting recommendations sought'
2005\03\02@072524 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.

Want (fairly basic)

   1 GB+ storage
   Good monthly bandwidth (say 20 GB)
   Own Domain(s) capable
   FTP access
   No ads.

Wouldn't mind:

   emails with redirect or pop3 on site.
   misc extensions / PHP, front page extensions, ...
   ...

Low cost is desirable but "reasonable cost" is fine.

These people LOOK good (actually, sound superb)

       http://www.siteground.com//index.htm        *

Anyone able to comment on them?
What's the catch?

Anyone able to suggest alternatives at good cost with above
capability?


       RM

__________________________________

$US4/month buys:

1000 MB space
20 GB traffic/month
5 MySQL/Postgre DBs
CPanel
100 FREE subdomains
Auto responders
Forwarding
CLAM antivirus
SPAM protection
1000 FREE email accounts
Bonus From Overture!
Shopping Cart
Shared SSL
Custom error page
Search engine submission
PHP, Perl, Python
CGI scripts
FrontPage ext
Traffic stats
Unlimited FTP access

more... here
http://www.siteground.com//more_info.htm?PHPSESSID=c66ef85c1d66435439c9638965c6d6fd








2005\03\02@085150 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.

> These people LOOK good (actually, sound superb)
>
>         http://www.siteground.com//index.htm        *

Don't know these. I'm using http://p4host.com/ -- works well so far, no
major problems, reasonable support.

One thing to check for is whether they have a public customer forum. There
are so many crooked lo-cost hosting companies out there, that unless you
know somebody who has experience with a particular host or they have a
public forum you can't tell the bad apples until after you tried them.

The p4host forum is at http://knowledgehost.net/forums/

Gerhard

2005\03\02@085522 by Aza D. Oberman

flavicon
face
<Russell McMahon>
> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.

Had two years of good luck with http://www.WorldWideHosting4U.com

Gives a lot of personal service on shared servers.

2005\03\02@091156 by j m g

picon face
Try dreamhost.com, I've referred quite a few folks with personal and
commercial sites and everyones been happy.  Their cheapest plan is
9.95 - 7.95 if you prepay but on quick glance they're more than double
your listed space and bandwidth, have unlimited mysql databases but
don't have anywhere near the same number of subdomains included, but
the 1 9.95 plan will let you host upto 3 distinct domain names.
They've been doing this since about 1997.


On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:25:24 +1300, Russell McMahon
<spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\03\02@093552 by Dave VanHorn
flavicon
face

I've been using 123Ehost.
Good support, not expensive.


2005\03\02@093652 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
I've been using AK Web Hosting for a few years and have been very happy with
their service.
http://www.www-hosting.net/

There is one catch, you have to be a little patient on support request turn
around time during the annual Caribou hunt (they are staffed mainly by
native Alaskans and end up short staffed during the hunt).

Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@MIT.EDU On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:25 AM
>
>Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
>sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.
>
<snip>

2005\03\02@094204 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <apptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz>
Subject: [OT] Web hosting recommendations sought


> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.

Russ

I am currently using two different hosting companies.  Each has their charm,
both are inexpensive.

http://www.tlchost.net has blisteringly fast servers and quite a few
features.  It is basically a one man band, so from that perspective perhaps
a little shaky.  But on the other hand, the one man is very responsive, if a
little gruff.  He is a fellow radio amateur so perhaps I trust him a little
more than the average bear.

http://www.astrahosting.com has a full set of features and is priced a
little higher for a little more storage in the low end package.  These guys
have pretty much all the features, and killer stats which is perhaps what I
like best about them.  They have support via IRC which is pretty decent, but
seems to be the only way to get support.  They aren't that great at
answering emails, but the IRC support is good.

They are pretty much the same price, but astrahosting has a setup fee which
makes the first year a little more expensive.  Both have email, mailing
lists, stats, cgi, perl, php.  I think tlchost has MySQL, but I'm not sure
... not using it there.  I am using MySQL on astra.  On tlc, you can grab
your mail by pop3 or redirect it, but for SMTP you need your own server.
Astra, in addition to that, has webmail which allows you to send mail
without using your ISPs server.  Astra also has autoresponders and pretty
complete setup of email aliases.

Since you are apparently in nz, tlchost's one man band thing could be a
problem since he is unlikely to be awake when you are.  I really don't know
how responsive astra is in the middle of the night here, but I have gotten
quite good response from them late in the evening, so I suspect they man the
IRC account 24 hours.  Of course they claim to, but ...

--McD


2005\03\02@101658 by Peter Johansson

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon writes:

> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.
>
> Want (fairly basic)

There are a lot of players in the $4/mo web hosting arena these days,
and it's a pretty brutal market.  I haven't heard anything
specifically negative about any of the sites others have mentioned,
but beware -- the service guarantees for all of them are pretty
minimal.  If you are just running a personal or vanity site, it isn't
worth sweating over.  But if you are running a commercial site where
uptime and support are an issue, I'd reconsider any of these cheap
hosters.

-p.

2005\03\02@103358 by j m g

picon face
Agreed, at the $4 price point you might want to consider just keeping
it at home.

Another though since you're already hosting yourself, if your budget
allows is just get a bigger pipe, if that's an option...why give
someone else the extra cash when you can use it for more...


On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:16:57 -0500, Peter Johansson <.....peterKILLspamspam.....elemental.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\03\02@104342 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Johansson" <EraseMEpeterspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTelemental.org>
Subject: Re: [OT] Web hosting recommendations sought


> minimal.  If you are just running a personal or vanity site, it isn't
> worth sweating over.  But if you are running a commercial site where
> uptime and support are an issue, I'd reconsider any of these cheap
> hosters.

FWIW ... I've been keeping tabs on astrahosting, and in general they have
been doing pretty well.  I don't have data on tlchost, but my perception is
that they are better.

Both tlc and astra had some outages at the first of the year.  I know tlc
was upgrading its servers.  I don't know that astra was doing the same, but
their uptime has changed since so I suspect they were doing something.

I have a cron job that tests connectivity to my site at astra every twenty
minutes.  I can't really tell if the web server does anything useful, only
that it answers.  And although I can tell a failed DNS request from a no
answer, I really can't tell whether the no answer was from astra or my ISP.

Last year I was seeing short outages on astra fairly regularly.  These
generally occurred in the wee hours (US time) on the weekend.  Since the
outages at the first of the year, this has gone from an almost every weekend
occurrence to about once a month (we're not far enough into the year to have
good numbers here).

One thing that you can do ... if you know of some websites hosted by a
hosting company that you are considering, go to http://www.netcraft.com and see if
they have statistics.  They watch a LOT of web sites and can show you a
graph of uptime.  I wouldn't look for the hoster's own website, though.
Most have a lot of servers, an I suspect that their ability to recognize a
problem on their own server would be different than for their customers'.

--McD


2005\03\02@105507 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: "j m g" <beowulfspamspam_OUTgmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] Web hosting recommendations sought


> Agreed, at the $4 price point you might want to consider just keeping
> it at home.

Shoot ... it's worth the $4/mo just to not have to configure sendmail!

The market is so competitive it seems like all these guys are pretty
reasonable.  As I said, I've been pretty happy with both of the ones I'm
using.  They each have their quirks, but they are a whole lot less hassle
than doing it myself, and they are a lot cheaper than I could do it with my
ISP, who takes an extra nickle (well, I think $40/mo) to allow me to run a
server.  Sure, I'd get a fatter pipe for the extra change, but I already
have a fat enough pipe that I'm almost always waiting on the server rather
than the pipe.  Even with Russ's 128K I'd bet that, except for downloading
ISOs, he is usually waiting on the server.  OK, it would be different if I
were running a server, but for $4, I don't have to.

--McD


2005\03\02@175230 by Peter Johansson

flavicon
face
John J. McDonough writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "j m g" <@spam@beowulfKILLspamspamgmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [OT] Web hosting recommendations sought
>
>
> > Agreed, at the $4 price point you might want to consider just keeping
> > it at home.
>
> Shoot ... it's worth the $4/mo just to not have to configure sendmail!

;-)

It's not just sendmail, many of those $4/mo hosters include mysql,
php, perl, multiple email accounts, shell access, and access to the
log files -- not to mention security updates on all the above.

If you fit into the $4 category, it's really hard not to be a win.
But there is a gotcha -- the pricess for the add-ons add ip quite
fast.  For example, it's often more expensive to add a second domain
and double the bandwidth on one account than it is to create a new
one.

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention:

                   ALWAYS MAKE YOUR OWN BACKUPS!
                   ALWAYS MAKE YOUR OWN BACKUPS!
                   ALWAYS MAKE YOUR OWN BACKUPS!

{Quote hidden}

Another way to look it is that $4 is the cost of a decent beer in a
pub, and the only time I ever count my beers is when I'll be
driving...

-p.

2005\03\02@211954 by Mike Singer

picon face
Russell McMahon  wrote:
> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.

Why not some ASP.NET host? Kind of Brinkster.

There exist a lot of free ASP.NET packages to handle images.

Regards,
Mike.

2005\03\03@065847 by cdb

flavicon
face
Well I use (well see below)  I use the basic package costs £1.99/month + 17.5%VAT.

The main drawback is you have to be able to give them a UK address for snail mail correspondance, other than that they don't care where you live. Just as well I still have family in the UK.

Colin

-- cdb, KILLspamcolinKILLspamspambtech-online.co.uk on Thursday,3 March,2005

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  
Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359

Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until they speak!

2005\03\04@225255 by Mike Singer

picon face
> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.


Russell,

you can store your images on some fast free server, place only links
to the images on your home server pages.

Regards,
Mike.

PS
This last my post with politics, I think I shouldn't post it.

2005\03\05@003156 by Mike Singer

picon face
> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.


>From http://www.webhost4life.com/freebonus.asp
--------------------------
ASP.NET applications are no longer just for those who know
programming. Webhost4life now offers automatic installations for
applications like:
DotNetNuke (Web Portal)
ASP.NET Forum 1.0 & 2.0 (Discussion Forum)
Community Starter Kit (Web Portal)
Rainbow Portal RC4 (Web Portal)
and much more!  
No programming knowledge is required. Installing powerful and useful
ASP.NET applications are just few clicks away!
-------------------------

Regards,
Mike.

2005\03\05@003541 by Mike Singer

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:
> > Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> > sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.
>
> From http://www.webhost4life.com/freebonus.asp

Independent view on DotNetNuke:

http://www.xd.com.au/dnn.xd

---
Mike.

2005\03\05@010144 by Mike Singer

picon face
> Looking for a well priced web presence to complement my large but
> sloooooow (128 kbps pipe) home server capacity.

Sorry for massive posting on this thread.
I just love NZ way of thinking how cheap must be unlimited things.

>From http://www.unlimitedhosting.co.nz

Mini Hosting: Unlimited traffic   $0.85 per month  

Mike.

2005\03\05@091703 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Russell,

I know you're looking for cheap (ASAIC, anything under $10/mo is
cheap), but I have nothing but good to say about
http://www.wisesource.com/hosting/compare.htm

I pay 6 months at a time and so get a better package for a lower
price, but the service is great and the speed is good.  Like many
others this is a one-man show, but he gives out his cell phone, email,
3 different IM contacts, and there's never been a time when I've
needed him that I haven't been able to get ahold of him.  I rarely
need to get ahold of him, though, and when I do I usually go for email
first and get a response within an hour.

I've been with wisesource for several years now after an exceptionally
bad experience with a cheap webhost that was good for a year, then
terrible afterwards.

-Adam

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:25:24 +1300, Russell McMahon
<RemoveMEapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\03\06@071520 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> I know you're looking for cheap (ASAIC, anything under $10/mo is
> cheap), but I have nothing but good to say about
> http://www.wisesource.com/hosting/compare.htm

What I don't understand really is why many web hosts place restrictions on
items that really don't cost resources, like number of subdomains, email
accounts, ftp accounts, databases etc.

Once the infrastructure is in place for the client to be able to create and
manage these accounts (e.g. through cPanel), it really doesn't make a
difference in cost for the host how many email accounts I set up.

I understand restrictions on storage, shell access, traffic, everything
that costs licensing, server load (even though that's rare) -- but number
of email or ftp accounts or something like this seems always odd to me.

Gerhard

2005\03\06@145905 by Mike Beattie

flavicon
face
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:15:08AM -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> What I don't understand really is why many web hosts place restrictions on
> items that really don't cost resources, like number of subdomains, email
> accounts, ftp accounts, databases etc.
...
> I understand restrictions on storage, shell access, traffic, everything
> that costs licensing, server load (even though that's rare) -- but number
> of email or ftp accounts or something like this seems always odd to me.

Why be unrestricted, when you can charge more and make money from the
thing that costs you nothing?

That, and, without a tool like cPanel for customers to manage their own
stuff, large numbers of accounts/domains/etc becomes an administration
nightmare.

Mike.
--
Mike Beattie <spamBeGonemikespamBeGonespamethernal.org>                       ZL4DM, IRLP Node 6184

 "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
    very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams

2005\03\07@062055 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> What I don't understand really is why many web hosts place
> restrictions on
> items that really don't cost resources, like number of subdomains,
> email
> accounts, ftp accounts, databases etc.

Marketing.
If the service is valuable to people then you can attract them at a
cheap rate to the basic service and then make far more money by
selling no-cost extras that they value.

If you sell a $5/month service and make $1/month you make 20% profit.
If you can add extras that cost you nothing that people value and are
able to charge $10/month you have increased you price by a factor of
2 - but your absolute profit by a factor of 6!!!

Marketing wins :-)


       RM

2005\03\07@135944 by Michael O'Donnell

flavicon
face
Just to throw 2 more bits of data in:

I used to use Catalog.com, but was dissatisfied with them... I seemed to
have mail problems, and when I complained, they always said that they
didn't have any problems.  Their pricing structure was weird, too (as
someone mentioned, lots of upcharges for things like extra email
forwarders, which don't cost them anything)...

I've since switched to http://www.siteflip.com, and have been very satisfied with
them.  I pay US$60/year for hosting up to 5 domains with reasonable space
allowances.  Their website feels sketchy, as if it might vanish at any time
(can be hard to find support links where they should be, etc), but I've
never had anything to actually complain about.

cheers,
mike

At 07:16 AM 3/2/2005, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2005\03\07@214118 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:15:08 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler
<TakeThisOuTlistsEraseMEspamspam_OUTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> What I don't understand really is why many web hosts place restrictions on
> items that really don't cost resources, like number of subdomains, email
> accounts, ftp accounts, databases etc.

If you have ever tried to host your own email server, you'd understand
that each additional account has some cost associated with it.

My main email account that I've had for ~5 years gets about 500
messages a day, most of which are spam, most of which are around 2-5k,
though many are well above that size.  This adds up after the many
email accounts on my server, and multiplies over all the customers on
this server. (yes, I have worked with various spam filters and
services.  I suppose I'm a glutton for punishment, but I have not yet
found one that is satisfactory)

In other words, the email traffic for a given email server can easily
eclipse a generic DSL or cable line.  If the hosting company were to
allow 'unlimited' email (and some do) then everyones email performance
/must/ suffer for the few users that really take the 'unlimited'
resource for a ride.

This is one reason I don't host with many 'unlimited' companies - they
cannot possibly gaurantee me the kind of service I'd like for my
measly $20/mo.

If you've ever been hosted on a server that manages hundreds of
virtual domains, and an email server that's serving thousands of
accounts you'll have a perfect understanding of what I'm talking
about.

TANSTAAFL.

-Adam

2005\03\08@060235 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:15:08 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> What I don't understand really is why many web hosts place restrictions on
>> items that really don't cost resources, like number of subdomains, email
>> accounts, ftp accounts, databases etc.
>
> If you have ever tried to host your own email server, you'd understand
> that each additional account has some cost associated with it.

You did only cite part of my message, and left out the part that's crucial
for your point:

{Quote hidden}

Your are talking about /traffic/ here. Quote from my message: "I understand
restrictions on ... traffic, ..."

> If the hosting company were to allow 'unlimited' email (and some do) then
> everyones email performance /must/ suffer for the few users that really
> take the 'unlimited' resource for a ride.

Not really. I still fail to see how 10 accounts with 1 MB/day each of
traffic could hurt more than 1 account with 10 MB/day of traffic. That's
why I think the restriction on /numbers/ of email and ftp accounts,
/numbers/ of subdomains (there's really no difference in server load
whether the traffic goes to host.com/subdom or to subdom.host.com) and
similar items are merely marketing tricks.

I prefer in general hosts that charge for the real cost items. /They/ give
you a reasonable guarantee that things don't get out of hand. A host that
limits the number of email accounts but not the traffic might well go down
on these few accounts (especially if there are a few like yours :)

A host that puts limits on the items that count (like traffic, storage,
server load etc) has a better chance of running well than a host that
limits numbers of subdomains.

> This is one reason I don't host with many 'unlimited' companies - they
> cannot possibly gaurantee me the kind of service I'd like for my measly
> $20/mo.

I pay $13/mo, and I do get unlimited numbers of subdomains, email accounts,
ftp accounts, data bases, and so on -- all the items that in itself don't
cost anything. I do have limited storage and traffic -- which I perfectly
understand. Makes more sense to me. I'm a fan of charging for the real
costs; I think that makes most things work better.

> If you've ever been hosted on a server that manages hundreds of virtual
> domains, and an email server that's serving thousands of accounts you'll
> have a perfect understanding of what I'm talking about.

I avoid such situations. But this has very little to do with what I've
said. If you ever have been hosted on a shared server with /one/ other site
with extremely high traffic you'll have a perfect understanding of what I'm
talking about.

> TANSTAAFL.

It's not really about a free lunch. It's about charging for items that
create cost rather than for items that are mere marketing structure. I
tried to come up with a better analogy that involves "lunch", but couldn't
come up with one :)

Gerhard

2005\03\08@202844 by Martin Klingensmith

flavicon
face
A friend of mine runs a webhosting business. He's extremely fanatical
about helping his customers out because he's trying to get his business
going to support his family. (I know, you don't care etc..)
But anyway if you want to check it out go here (maybe this should be [AD]):
http://hostdeploy.com/
--
Martin K

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...