webmasterbeta
New Member
My hubby says that, since we just paid off our mortgage, we've got the funds to cut to the chase and go for dedicated hosting. But since I know nothing about managing a server, we'd want managed hosting.
According to what little I've been able to glean (and assuming I've done the gleaning correctly), I would need 512 meg to 1 gig of memory, and more than a minimal or old CPU. I don't need much space (< 75 meg) or bandwidth (< 75 gig), and I don't need fancy services (my site is static), but I do need something sturdy enough to handle 13K daily visitors making 300K daily file calls.
I'm looking at LiquidWeb's hosting options. Are there any other "tried and true" managed dedicated server hosts that I should be considering? I need to make a decision soon.
Thank you.
Eliz.I believe a dedicated server would be a true overkill for your type of site.Look at a standard shared hosting account or possibly a VPS.stapel,I'd have to agree with vertica1 here: Judging by the # of static hits (static doesn't really push any cpu at all): Even shared would be sufficient for you.Now with that said -- I do notice you said you had to make a decision soon: Don't rush into it! It's not something you want to buy suddenly. Migrating your sites around often if you choose the wrong dedicated provider can result in unnecessary downtime.I'm actually in the process of moving off of a managed dedicated server.
Sometimes "managed" does not necessarily mean they handle everything!
For example, in "managed" situations, you often have to request upgrades of things like php, mysql and cpanel. So often it is not all it is cracked up to be.
And sometimes you'll find that getting 1 gb of memory and a pentium processor in a dedicated situation ends up being weaker than a shared situation with 4-8 gb of memory, dual xeons, and lots of other powerful stuff like top of the line fire walls.you can get managed services for your server from many diffrent places . it maybe a better choice for you to get the best dealI believe a dedicated server would be a true overkill for your type of site.
You may be right -- for now. But we'll almost certainly need "dedicated" eventually. It seems reasonable to me to try to find somebody with whom we can expand.
Look at a standard shared hosting account or possibly a VPS.
I don't dare try shared again. But maybe we'll start with VPS....
Judging by the # of static hits (static doesn't really push any cpu at all): Even shared would be sufficient for you.
But shared has failed twice inside a month. I don't disagree that this seems terribly unreasonable, but there you are.
Don't rush into it!
The one host gave me seven days to clear out. The next pretty much told me, openly on their forums, to sod off. I can "rush", or I can go dark for a few weeks. I don't, unfortunately, seem to have much choice.
Happily, however, there seems to be a wealth of information here, from which I hope I can make a good decision.
Sometimes "managed" does not necessarily mean they handle everything!
True enough. This is going to be a "learning experience", whichever route we end up taking. I wish I didn't have to be learning at such a lightning pace (I'm too old for this!), but it's better than having a site that never grows, right? You take the bad with the good, I guess.
And sometimes you'll find that getting 1 gb of memory and a pentium processor in a dedicated situation ends up being weaker than a shared situation...
I've heard that. I hope this works out okay....
you can get managed services for your server from many diffrent places
That's an interesting prospect. I may look into that later, once our hosting situation is nailed down and we've caught our breath.
Thanks to all for their time and advice! :lovewht:
Eliz.But shared has failed twice inside a month. I don't disagree that this seems terribly unreasonable, but there you are.That's because most hosts oversell their servers and try to cut off the heavy users to salvage as much resources as they can.There are hosts that don't do this though, and they can definitely give you a great solution.Jumping into dedicated is not really a good idea even if you take full management. There are still certain tasks that you will have to do, and there is a *major* learning curve as you get started. The same goes for a VPS and in addition it's very likely that your site will run slow on a VPS (slower than shared hosting, most likely). Given all of that, shared hosting is probably the best for you. Just look around - you'll definitely find a shared host that doesn't vastly oversell their servers and can offer you a great deal.Best of luck.That's because most hosts oversell their servers....There are hosts that don't do this though....
The host that just told me to take a flying leap is the one who'd also told me that they don't oversell their servers. So you can see why, no matter how reasonable you and I might view shared hosting to be, we're feeling leery of trying it yet again.
Jumping into dedicated is not really a good idea even if you take full management.
Which was why we'd switched to a shared host that swore they didn't oversell their servers: we wanted the time to learn what we were doing. Sadly, we're out of time. Believe me: we'd have much rather gone the way you recommend.
Thank you.
Eliz.Congratulations of paying off your mortgage, it must be a great feeling.Congratulations of paying off your mortgage, it must be a great feeling.
It's a marvelous feeling! :clap:
Eliz.Hello,
You may want to consider Defender Hosting. One of the best and Tom & crew have been doing it for a long while now.
Good luck w/ your search!How about semi-dedicated? They are still shared but only with around 4 to 9 other accounts and the host will allow you much higher usage of resources.
Otherwise, a managed vps will be quite good. However, please remember you will still need to do stuff yourself like others have said. And if you do get one, I recommend you replace apache webserver with lighttpd or litespeed.i think she(?) got her heart set on dedicated or VPS 'cause of those bad share hosting expereinces in the past. if you got the money...a VPS might be a better choice. i believe some host provide manage service on VPS or a cheap dedicated is reasonable option as well. you can hire someone on WHT with good rep. to do a one time security/manage and just pay them monthly or quaterly to manage your server.a cheap server for like $85 from LT then pay someone say Steve from rack11(i don't remeber his website/company name) for quaterly or monthly checkout is a pretty cheap option as well.I recommend you replace apache webserver with lighttpd or litespeed.
I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but why would this be a good idea?
i think she(?) got her heart set on dedicated or VPS 'cause of those bad share hosting expereinces in the past.
You're correct on my reasoning and on my gender. ("Eliz." is the proper abbreviation for "Elizabeth".)
if you got the money...a VPS might be a better choice.
We've decided to go with LiquidWeb's new VPS option, partly because of the high praise this host has received around WHT, partly because this seems like a sensible way to start, and partly because LiquidWeb also has dedicated accounts (for when we need to move up). :gthumb:
Here's hoping we don't have to move in another couple of weeks....
Thank you.
Eliz.Eliz,Let us know how it goes with liquidweb!Let us know how it goes with liquidweb!
Will do! :lovewht:
Eliz.Nice choice. LiquidWeb is definitely a well renown company. Hope they work out for you!I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but why would this be a good idea?
I'm not sure why your old host wants you out, because like everyone said, static htmls should not be a problem. I was just pointing to faster and more efficient web servers. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/">http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/</a><!-- m -->.
Good luck on your new vps. If you go with a control panel, Apache is still fine (I'm using it too).eace:It's all been said about hosting so...Congrats of paying off your mortgage!Best of Luck! Eliz,
You'll love liquid Web. Our servers use their network and datacenters. A couple weeks ago we toured their datacenters and they are both really nice. The new one should be open for servers in two to three weeks from what I hear.Yup, you should be very happy at LW.check out the servers at acunett
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.acunett.com/dedicated/">http://www.acunett.com/dedicated/</a><!-- m -->
I have several servers with them and they have been very reliable and priced rightcheck out the servers at acunett
Well, um.... If things don't work out with LiquidWeb, perhaps we will.
Thank you.
Eliz.Have you out grown your current host? Are you running an application? High traffic site?Have you out grown your current host?
We only just started with LiquidWeb a couple of weeks ago, and are using a VPS account. Since LiquidWeb also has "dedicated server" accounts into which we can move if/when the time comes, no, we have not yet outgrown them.
Are you running an application? High traffic site?
As mentioned initially, our site is static (so no, no applications), with about 13K visitors making calls for 300K files each day (so yes, high traffic).
Thank you.
Eliz.I have a suggestion with whatever host you go with, Make a ramdisk so your harddrive does not become a choke point. You are hosting all static content so this will be very useful.And don't forget those backups, especially with the problems you've had beforehand.I was just pointing to faster and more efficient web servers. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/">http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/</a><!-- m -->
Debateable if lighttpd is much faster than a properly tuned Apache config.. Plus if you're only going to be serving static files and you want to do it quickly you might be better off with a kernel-space httpd.
According to what little I've been able to glean (and assuming I've done the gleaning correctly), I would need 512 meg to 1 gig of memory, and more than a minimal or old CPU. I don't need much space (< 75 meg) or bandwidth (< 75 gig), and I don't need fancy services (my site is static), but I do need something sturdy enough to handle 13K daily visitors making 300K daily file calls.
I'm looking at LiquidWeb's hosting options. Are there any other "tried and true" managed dedicated server hosts that I should be considering? I need to make a decision soon.
Thank you.
Eliz.I believe a dedicated server would be a true overkill for your type of site.Look at a standard shared hosting account or possibly a VPS.stapel,I'd have to agree with vertica1 here: Judging by the # of static hits (static doesn't really push any cpu at all): Even shared would be sufficient for you.Now with that said -- I do notice you said you had to make a decision soon: Don't rush into it! It's not something you want to buy suddenly. Migrating your sites around often if you choose the wrong dedicated provider can result in unnecessary downtime.I'm actually in the process of moving off of a managed dedicated server.
Sometimes "managed" does not necessarily mean they handle everything!
For example, in "managed" situations, you often have to request upgrades of things like php, mysql and cpanel. So often it is not all it is cracked up to be.
And sometimes you'll find that getting 1 gb of memory and a pentium processor in a dedicated situation ends up being weaker than a shared situation with 4-8 gb of memory, dual xeons, and lots of other powerful stuff like top of the line fire walls.you can get managed services for your server from many diffrent places . it maybe a better choice for you to get the best dealI believe a dedicated server would be a true overkill for your type of site.
You may be right -- for now. But we'll almost certainly need "dedicated" eventually. It seems reasonable to me to try to find somebody with whom we can expand.
Look at a standard shared hosting account or possibly a VPS.
I don't dare try shared again. But maybe we'll start with VPS....
Judging by the # of static hits (static doesn't really push any cpu at all): Even shared would be sufficient for you.
But shared has failed twice inside a month. I don't disagree that this seems terribly unreasonable, but there you are.
Don't rush into it!
The one host gave me seven days to clear out. The next pretty much told me, openly on their forums, to sod off. I can "rush", or I can go dark for a few weeks. I don't, unfortunately, seem to have much choice.
Happily, however, there seems to be a wealth of information here, from which I hope I can make a good decision.
Sometimes "managed" does not necessarily mean they handle everything!
True enough. This is going to be a "learning experience", whichever route we end up taking. I wish I didn't have to be learning at such a lightning pace (I'm too old for this!), but it's better than having a site that never grows, right? You take the bad with the good, I guess.
And sometimes you'll find that getting 1 gb of memory and a pentium processor in a dedicated situation ends up being weaker than a shared situation...
I've heard that. I hope this works out okay....
you can get managed services for your server from many diffrent places
That's an interesting prospect. I may look into that later, once our hosting situation is nailed down and we've caught our breath.
Thanks to all for their time and advice! :lovewht:
Eliz.But shared has failed twice inside a month. I don't disagree that this seems terribly unreasonable, but there you are.That's because most hosts oversell their servers and try to cut off the heavy users to salvage as much resources as they can.There are hosts that don't do this though, and they can definitely give you a great solution.Jumping into dedicated is not really a good idea even if you take full management. There are still certain tasks that you will have to do, and there is a *major* learning curve as you get started. The same goes for a VPS and in addition it's very likely that your site will run slow on a VPS (slower than shared hosting, most likely). Given all of that, shared hosting is probably the best for you. Just look around - you'll definitely find a shared host that doesn't vastly oversell their servers and can offer you a great deal.Best of luck.That's because most hosts oversell their servers....There are hosts that don't do this though....
The host that just told me to take a flying leap is the one who'd also told me that they don't oversell their servers. So you can see why, no matter how reasonable you and I might view shared hosting to be, we're feeling leery of trying it yet again.
Jumping into dedicated is not really a good idea even if you take full management.
Which was why we'd switched to a shared host that swore they didn't oversell their servers: we wanted the time to learn what we were doing. Sadly, we're out of time. Believe me: we'd have much rather gone the way you recommend.
Thank you.
Eliz.Congratulations of paying off your mortgage, it must be a great feeling.Congratulations of paying off your mortgage, it must be a great feeling.
It's a marvelous feeling! :clap:
Eliz.Hello,
You may want to consider Defender Hosting. One of the best and Tom & crew have been doing it for a long while now.
Good luck w/ your search!How about semi-dedicated? They are still shared but only with around 4 to 9 other accounts and the host will allow you much higher usage of resources.
Otherwise, a managed vps will be quite good. However, please remember you will still need to do stuff yourself like others have said. And if you do get one, I recommend you replace apache webserver with lighttpd or litespeed.i think she(?) got her heart set on dedicated or VPS 'cause of those bad share hosting expereinces in the past. if you got the money...a VPS might be a better choice. i believe some host provide manage service on VPS or a cheap dedicated is reasonable option as well. you can hire someone on WHT with good rep. to do a one time security/manage and just pay them monthly or quaterly to manage your server.a cheap server for like $85 from LT then pay someone say Steve from rack11(i don't remeber his website/company name) for quaterly or monthly checkout is a pretty cheap option as well.I recommend you replace apache webserver with lighttpd or litespeed.
I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but why would this be a good idea?
i think she(?) got her heart set on dedicated or VPS 'cause of those bad share hosting expereinces in the past.
You're correct on my reasoning and on my gender. ("Eliz." is the proper abbreviation for "Elizabeth".)
if you got the money...a VPS might be a better choice.
We've decided to go with LiquidWeb's new VPS option, partly because of the high praise this host has received around WHT, partly because this seems like a sensible way to start, and partly because LiquidWeb also has dedicated accounts (for when we need to move up). :gthumb:
Here's hoping we don't have to move in another couple of weeks....
Thank you.
Eliz.Eliz,Let us know how it goes with liquidweb!
Let us know how it goes with liquidweb!Will do! :lovewht:
Eliz.Nice choice. LiquidWeb is definitely a well renown company. Hope they work out for you!I'm sorry to be so ignorant, but why would this be a good idea?
I'm not sure why your old host wants you out, because like everyone said, static htmls should not be a problem. I was just pointing to faster and more efficient web servers. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/">http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/</a><!-- m -->.
Good luck on your new vps. If you go with a control panel, Apache is still fine (I'm using it too).
eace:It's all been said about hosting so...Congrats of paying off your mortgage!Best of Luck! Eliz,You'll love liquid Web. Our servers use their network and datacenters. A couple weeks ago we toured their datacenters and they are both really nice. The new one should be open for servers in two to three weeks from what I hear.Yup, you should be very happy at LW.check out the servers at acunett
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.acunett.com/dedicated/">http://www.acunett.com/dedicated/</a><!-- m -->
I have several servers with them and they have been very reliable and priced right
check out the servers at acunettWell, um.... If things don't work out with LiquidWeb, perhaps we will.
Thank you.
Eliz.Have you out grown your current host? Are you running an application? High traffic site?Have you out grown your current host?
We only just started with LiquidWeb a couple of weeks ago, and are using a VPS account. Since LiquidWeb also has "dedicated server" accounts into which we can move if/when the time comes, no, we have not yet outgrown them.
Are you running an application? High traffic site?
As mentioned initially, our site is static (so no, no applications), with about 13K visitors making calls for 300K files each day (so yes, high traffic).
Thank you.
Eliz.I have a suggestion with whatever host you go with, Make a ramdisk so your harddrive does not become a choke point. You are hosting all static content so this will be very useful.And don't forget those backups, especially with the problems you've had beforehand.I was just pointing to faster and more efficient web servers. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/">http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark/</a><!-- m -->
Debateable if lighttpd is much faster than a properly tuned Apache config.. Plus if you're only going to be serving static files and you want to do it quickly you might be better off with a kernel-space httpd.