virtual host suggestions

[RabbieBurns]

Im looking to get myself a webhost with as much disk space and traffic as possible for the minimum cost, preferably on a 100mb link. Some sort of linux distro I can have root on, and a handfull of IPs.

 

There seems so many and so many varying prices.. anyone got any suggestions please?

[Ryan]

I currently use

Web hosting and domain names at 4UHosting.co.uk (using shared)

and

Dedicated Server | Dedicated Hosting | Dedicated Servers | Melbourne.co.uk (using dedicated)

 

Both been awesome throughout. Two different horses for very different courses (and different price tags). Melbourne may be out of the equation instantly, as they're mostly dedicated. PM for more details if need be.

[CyberNerd]

Amazon EC2

 

Amazon Web Services @ Amazon.com

[somabc]

Slicehost?

 

Slicehost - VPS Hosting

 

Our Plans

Plan RAM Storage BW Monthly Cost

256 slice 256MB 10GB 100GB $20

512 slice 512MB 20GB 200GB $38

1GB slice 1024MB 40GB 400GB $70

2GB slice 2048MB 80GB 800GB $140

4GB slice 4096MB 160GB 1600GB $280

Edited May 30, 2008 by somabc

[localzuk]

VPSLand.com? I use them, very reliable.

[Michael]

I wouldn't recommend a VPS myself. I started hosting my own website on a VPS and had nothing but problems and that was with Webfusion.

 

I currently use Fast Hosts Windows Business service which I can highly recommend. They also do Linux packages too.

 

To be honest, if you genuinely need 100Mbps of bandwidth you should be looking at nothing less than a dedicated server. All Fasthosts dedicated servers come with 10Mbps of bandwidth on Core 2 processors. I think you can increase the bandwidth as and when you require it. Fasthosts best package is the DS850 which comes with 2 x 500GB hard drives!

[somabc]

Yes but VPS are cheaper and you are in full control as regards the software you run so you'd be better be prepared to be a full time sysadmin.

[localzuk]

I wouldn't recommend a VPS myself. I started hosting my own website on a VPS and had nothing but problems and that was with Webfusion.

 

The experience with one host isn't enough to slate an entire hosting type. VPS's are a burgeoning industry and are perfect for many hosting purposes.

 

All a VPS is, is a mini dedicated host. How can that cause any problems?

[Michael]

The experience with one host isn't enough to slate an entire hosting type. VPS's are a burgeoning industry and are perfect for many hosting purposes.

 

All a VPS is, is a mini dedicated host. How can that cause any problems?

 

I agree with you that VPS's are essentially a mini dedicated host sharing available hardware resources, yet act completely independent of one another. I don't however consider 100Mbps of internet bandwidth mini myself. You don't really get huge amounts of memory or hard disk space comparatively to a dedicated service.

 

I think rreynolds24's needs to be more specific what he/she intends to host and why they require 100Mbps of bandwidth. 100Mbps of bandwidth would cost more than VPS itself, so going for a dedicated server wouldn't be such a massive leap.

 

I don't think VPS's are bad, but I think it didn't help (in my situation) because Webfusion were using Windows Server x64, despite each server only had 512MB of available memory allocated to it.

[localzuk]

I agree with you that VPS's are essentially a mini dedicated host sharing available hardware resources, yet act completely independent of one another. I don't however consider 100Mbps of internet bandwidth mini myself. You don't really get huge amounts of memory or hard disk space comparatively to a dedicated service.

 

I think rreynolds24's needs to be more specific what he/she intends to host and why they require 100Mbps of bandwidth. 100Mbps of bandwidth would cost more than VPS itself, so going for a dedicated server wouldn't be such a massive leap.

 

Agree, but I think they're being a bit over specced there, as a 100Mbps link would provide 32terabytes of data transfer per month. Unless you're running, say, the guardian website, I doubt they are going to use anywhere near this amount of bandwidth.

 

I don't think VPS's are bad, but I think it didn't help (in my situation) because Webfusion were using Windows Server x64, despite each server only had 512MB of available memory allocated to it.

 

Eugh, windows servers. Why would you want them?

[Michael]

Agree, but I think they're being a bit over specced there, as a 100Mbps link would provide 32terabytes of data transfer per month. Unless you're running, say, the guardian website, I doubt they are going to use anywhere near this amount of bandwidth.

 

Yeah my thoughts of over specced came to mind too. Most VPS's probably come with 10Mbps these days and I would of thought that should be enough.

 

Eugh, windows servers. Why would you want them?

 

Well my website is based on ASP, so I have little choice

[localzuk]

Well my website is based on ASP, so I have little choice

 

Write it in a proper language like php?

[Michael]

I do actually prefer PHP as it's always less resource hungry than ASP. In saying that I have a good host and the Control Panel tools available to administer my actual site and the support I receive are top notch, so I can't complain!

[localzuk]

I do actually prefer PHP as it's always less resource hungry than ASP. In saying that I have a good host and the Control Panel tools available to administer my actual site and the support I receive are top notch, so I can't complain!

 

Excuses excuses!