Good Web Hosting Companies?

[Manfred Lopez]

I am about to publish my web page and was wondering if anyone could recommend some good, reliable companies that they have dealt with. I tried to search "web hosting" here on reduser but got back zero results. Thanks.

[GlennChan]

Here is a thread:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21140&highlight=iweb

Of hosts I have experience with:

icdhost.com: Fast support though not necessarily the right answer. Recommend.
bluehost.com: Ok so far.

dreamhost: support is mediocre. probably because they oversell....
canaca: avoid; slow servers. probably because they oversell....

Really cheap hosting:
digital world host: not worth the hassle.


Domain hosting:
I prefer namecheap.com over godaddy.com. Namecheap is cheaper if you want to hide your email (it might avoid spam if you do so; but I don't know).
network solutions is overpriced and their security sucks.


Also check out webhostingtalk.com

[Manfred Lopez]

Thanks so much. I guess I should spend some time in www.webhostingtalk.com, which I didn't even know about. I'll also check out the companies you mentioned.

[Antti Pirskanen]

One way to build some redundancy to your e-mail is is to set-up your mail services with Google Apps premier edition and forwarding all the e-mails to accounts at the hosting company as well. That way you'll have two copies of every e-mail at different hosts just in case something goes really wrong. You can still host your actual web site at the web host.

Google apps premier edition ($75 / year per user) has a rather sophisticated message recovery and junk mail quarantine system which you can customize with various rules and filters. Their junk mail filter works very, very well. The price is kind of steep, but if you have only a few users, it might be worth it.

If your web site has any kind of e-commerce thing going on and you have unix system maintenance skills, you could have a look at one companies that specialize in dedicated servers and virtual private servers such as http://www.gandi.net/hosting/. They are in France though, but that should give you an idea of the price level with this kind of solution.

Dreamhost has great value for money, but they are famous for all kinds of "one in a million" incidents when just about everything seems to go wrong at the same time (see. http://blog.dreamhost.com/2008/01/16/the-aftermath/ )

For a completely managed high-end solution, http://www.rackspace.com/ has a great reputation.

[Benjamin Rowland]

LittleOak.net ---- Highly recommend.

[Martin Weiss]

http://mediatemple.net

Generous sizes, and can handle heavy traffic.

[Darren Orange]

www.dreamhost.com

Been with them for about 4 years now.

[GlennChan]

Dreamhost has great value for money, but they are famous for all kinds of "one in a million" incidents when just about everything seems to go wrong at the same time
There was that other time when all their servers were down for a day. (The data center lost power, and the backup generators didn't work.)

It also took me an entire month to transfer my domain to namecheap because support didn't get back to me.

[Dan Hudgins]

My site is on IX hosting right now, you can see how fast the images load on your computer, there are some streaming video files in Section: 4 you can try to see if they stream OK.

I have the two year $4.95 Linux deal "Expert Plan" (or something close to that it was less? for two years),

http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.hostingPlans

Very little downtime, unlike some of the places my site was at before, link to my site:

http://www.DANCAD3D.com

As noted on the site you need to read the EULA before downloading.

[Tony Lorentzen]

My site is on IX hosting right now, you can see how fast the images load on your computer, there are some streaming video files in Section: 4 you can try to see if they stream OK.

Dude - sorry to break it to you like this, but nobody has 56K modems anymore... Also - using Real Video isn't exactly the best option. Why not use Quicktime?

Edit: Another thing... 176x144 pixels? Come on... :blink:

[Dan Hudgins]

Dude - sorry to break it to you like this, but nobody has 56K modems anymore... Also - using Real Video isn't exactly the best option. Why not use Quicktime?

Edit: Another thing... 176x144 pixels? Come on... :blink:

Not everyone lives in Denmark, many people use computers on poor phone lines. I use a 56K modem and so do many people in the USA and around the world, and there are many graphics heavy web sites I cannot look at because they have no low bandwidth option.

Most of the time I have problems viewing my streeming videos even at 176x144 pixels, and I am sure people who might want to use my programs have worse connections since I live in San Francisco one of the worlds internet telcom centers.

I just mentioned that I had files that could be used to benchmark the hosting company.

As to why I did not use Quicktime, the files seemed larger and would not play on my computer streeming, so the download time might be half and hour or more for each lesson. Is there a free Quicktime encoder that runs under Windows 95 OSR2?

I have thought of putting the MPEG1 files up, but my bandwidth would go up and maybe go over my limit so I cannot afford extra fees right now. Compressed as there are, and I think everyone here knows my opinion of compressed movies by now, they are there to do a job, which they do and they are accessable to the target market.

Thanks for the critique, but its a bit off the subject of the quality of the Host company, I just offered the idea of using the graphics files from my site to bench mark them for access speed, not that anything I had to offer was something outstanding in the way of slickness.

[Manfred Lopez]

I wanted to thank everyone for their suggestions. I'm still looking over at all the options. I used to have one of these hosting companies like three years ago, but I can't remember which one... That only goes to show how generic-sounding most of them are. I wish choosing a hosting company wouldn't be such a pain.



I have thought of putting the MPEG1 files up, but my bandwidth would go up and maybe go over my limit so I cannot afford extra fees right now.

I don't quite follow. Aren't many plans "unlimited bandwidth" nowadays? For example yahoo claims they offer "unlimited" bandwidth and disc space for only $11.99 a month. Can't you get something like this?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Not everyone lives in Denmark, many people use computers on poor phone lines. I use a 56K modem and so do many people in the USA and around the world, and there are many graphics heavy web sites I cannot look at because they have no low bandwidth option.

Dan, is there a specific reason you're on dial-up vs. another option? Come on... You're in San Francisco! Actually, I have some friends just outside of the SF area who can't get anything other than T1 service or satellite. Old neighborhood that the phone company just hasn't served with DSL since they're on an old exchange with very few homes -- DSL service not cost-effective for the phone company. They ended up going the T1 route and share it amongst some neighbors who split the bill.

But what you say is true, and many people do not realize, there are many geographical regions in the USA that do not have a viable option for high speed internet. I was on dial-up access at my house until 2.5 years ago when I moved to a new place. My old house, which is about 5 miles from where I live now, still does not have any options available other than satellite (which sucks as bad as dial-up).

Most of the time I have problems viewing my streeming videos even at 176x144 pixels, and I am sure people who might want to use my programs have worse connections since I live in San Francisco one of the worlds internet telcom centers.

I just mentioned that I had files that could be used to benchmark the hosting company.


Is there a free Quicktime encoder that runs under Windows 95 OSR2? Yeah. An OLD version of QuickTime. I might have one on an old backup somewhere from circa '96. Maybe. I'm not going to ask as to why you're still running Win95 SR2 though.


I have thought of putting the MPEG1 files up, but my bandwidth would go up and maybe go over my limit so I cannot afford extra fees right now. You need a new hosting company if you're worrying about bandwidth.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

My contribution to the original topic...

Comanies to consider:

BlueHost
DreamHost

Companies to avoid:
Inmotionhosting
PowWeb

[Greg M]

http://mediatemple.net

Generous sizes, and can handle heavy traffic.

I'll second media temple...our host.

[Dan Hudgins]

Dan, is there a specific reason you're on dial-up vs. another option?

I don't connect my development or any render farm computers to the internet, and don't have spare cash now for just about anything non-essential.




Yeah. An OLD version of QuickTime. I might have one on an old backup somewhere from circa '96. Maybe. I'm not going to ask as to why you're still running Win95 SR2 though.

If you know the filename for the archive with that old Quicktime encoder I can search for it with google. Win95 OSR2 is so old few virus makers bother to write for it any longer, maybe? Since I would not let my good computer(s) touch the internet, it is all I have now to check email with...

I do have some MS MediaPlayer files up to benchmark with. Very few if any MAC users have used my programs since they are PC programs, I would like to port the programs to MAC, but as far as I know there are no development tools that would be able to do that without 90%+ rewrite and even then it would be hard or impossible to get some parts of the functionality to operate on a MAC. It is even impossible to get it to work under VISTA it seems since MS made changes to what can work. After 22 years I just want to have the programs do the job, and to do it well, so if FreeDOS FAT32 will let the programs work without total rewrites then that is what I will have to use, since I do not have 22 more years left in life to write code, I want to make films with what I have done already...



You need a new hosting company if you're worrying about bandwidth.

Last time I looked I have a bandwidth meter, and they just renewed my account for two years. I think people should check the fine print to see what exactly what "unlimited" means, as some hosts may have their own ideas...

[PatrickW]

What do people recommend for a site that is going to be uploading terabytes per month, streaming and offering video downloads.

Co-lo would be fine, but I am also looking at just renting a(part of a) a box. Preferably something that is linux/OSS friendly.

[Manfred Lopez]

I wanted to thank everyone who helped out with suggestions. I ended up choosing Media Temple with their Grid Light service ($95 for a year). What won me over was their client list. I get a kick knowing that if my site goes down, so will the ones from Warner Brothers, ABC, NBC, Sony, Adobe... :)

[GlennChan]

I don't quite follow. Aren't many plans "unlimited bandwidth" nowadays? For example yahoo claims they offer "unlimited" bandwidth and disc space for only $11.99 a month. Can't you get something like this?
Heh... misleading advertising. The hosts have TOS conditions and they will kick you off if you use too many resources.


I get a kick knowing that if my site goes down, so will the ones from Warner Brothers, ABC, NBC, Sony, Adobe...
Probably misleading advertising again. If it's cheap hosting, then it's probably some un-important part of WB, ABC, etc.

If it's expensive hosting, they are getting a very different product (and probably level of service) than you are getting.

In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about web hosting. It probably won't change your bottom line significantly.

[P Andersson]

have had stuff on verio and dreamhost no problems
smart friends also recommend mediatemple, haven't tried it yet
dreamhost for the blog as they allowed one click install of the wordpress files
verio for my site as that has worked with only three days down in over ten years now

[Manfred Lopez]

Probably misleading advertising again. If it's cheap hosting, then it's probably some un-important part of WB, ABC, etc.

If it's expensive hosting, they are getting a very different product (and probably level of service) than you are getting.


I know I know... that's why I put a smiley next to my claim. Media temple does offer expensive options for those companies and I know my little tiny site is on the bottom of the barrel priority-wise for them... but then again I just have small site so I really don't care right now.

What seems great with MediaTemple is that I can probably grow my site there without too much trouble. Their claim to fame seems to be able to handle sudden spikes without any problems at all since they spread all sites over all their servers so it becomes this giant, self-aware entity that one day will take over the world... or something like that. :tongue:

[Andrew Gentle]

We use Dreamhost and have found it to be very good in terms of reliability and data allowances (unlimited everything).
The trick they use is to get people who sign up on discounted deals and then put the prices up to normal. We got our entire first year of hosting for less than our thirteenth month. It's around $10/month now, which isn't too bad.

[KETCH ROSSi]

I use Servint http://www.servint.net/ t

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm in the process of moving all my stuff over to MediaTemple now. I guess it's a good excuse for me to actually build myself a new web site too.

I was still using InMotionHosting partially because the service was OK and the price wasn't too bad. I've butted heads with them once or twice before on usage policy. Anyway, I have to say goodbye to them after a little ordeal this weekend. They did some sort of DNS update on their servers, but it apparently didn't propagate through to all their hosting accounts. Or at least that's what I'm being told... I was busy all weekend and didn't notice, but I've been without email and have had non-functional sites for a couple companies here for the past 48 hours. No fun to have dozens of people calling me on monday morning asking why their email accounts are not working or they can't access a web site, etc.. I was told the fix would propagate through their system in a couple hours close to 4 hours ago... Starting to get impatient.

Ketch, I looked at servint today and chatted with them a bit. Seem like an OK bunch, but I didn't think they were offering very much for the price. I've used Media Temple off and on and I have most of the bigger sites I have designed for clients hosted with them these days. My only complaints about Media Temple is the bandwidth allocation and fees. Overages are $0.25/GB... That's painful. Then again, most of the "unlimited" providers out there are not truly unlimited. I've had DreamHost, BlueHost and InMotion shut me off for bandwidth usage before. They claim unlimited, but if you read the fine print, some of them still cap bandwidth around the 500GB to 1TB mark. Or if you put too much load on their systems, they'll just shut you down and come up with some lame excuse or some form of smoke screen. Had a client site last year, hosted with one of those guys, make the front page of Digg. Hosting provider pulled the plug and it took 3 or 4 days to get the site back, just so we could salvage blog responses, etc.. And move it to a different host.

[Martin Weiss]

I know my little tiny site is on the bottom of the barrel priority-wise for them...

Over the years I've been in contact with MT customer's service a few times, and even though I have the smallest of all possible plans, they always responded within a few hours, and were very helpful when calling on the phone. They really seem to heave a 24/7 customer support. They are 4th host I have had in about 15 years, and the one I am most happy with.

(For example, two weeks ago some of their customer's databases were hacked due to crappy passwords chosen by said customers. MT decided to take it safe and changed all passwords, and made that automatically.
Also, they allow for multiple sites hosted on the same account, and to have multiple databases.)

[Barry Gregg]

MediaTemple is excellent.

Globat is really, really bad. Terrible customer support, they kept charging after the account was canceled, and worst of all they stole my domain name.

[Martin Weiss]

worst of all they stole my domain name.

Yeah, it is important to use a reputable domain vendor, some have it in their agreements that they are actually the owner of the domains that you are "purchasing".

I learned that the hard ways in the 1990s when I lost cinematography.org to some shark...