I've done a lot of reading here at WHT, and I think its pretty clear that Rackspace is head and shoulders above all other "fully-managed" dedicated hosting companies.
Who do you think is #2?
I need scalability and support for load balancing, firewall configuration, etc. I've looked at softlayer, fastservers, liquidweb, and servint based on the reviews and recommendations here.
I'm willing to pay $400-$500 (with no setup fees) for a decent starter system. My site is new, but I expect it to grow quickly.
Thanks for any insights" need scalability and support for load balancing"
I would go with Softlayer, it makes it easy to add additional servers with the "second" private network..
I'm launching a site in 3 moths, and I plan on using them..servint might be #2I'd say servint personally.Just curious as to why you would say servint over SL, is it because they have been established longer?
Im asking to learn, Im new
ServInt's support is pretty great, but you cannot compare their network (which used to and still does [somewhat] have frequent outages) to Rackspace's 100% uptime network . . .Fastservers would be #2, for they have an outstanding friendly support .Oh dear - so size automatically means better service... not a very good way of looking at it to be honest...Yeah sir, Rackspace is the leader, zero down time, if you can pay over $400 monthly enjoy theirs managed servers.A few years ago, I considered Servint, but then I found out that their idea of backups was copying your data each night to a 2nd HD on the same server. If that's still the case, then Servint isn't in the same class as Rackspace with their backups to a remote server with daily differentials.Rackspace is top. I pay around 1500 for the same box that I can get from ServerMatrix for around 500$ and the 1500 does not include bandwidth which is like 65 cents a GB. But never had a problem with themJayI'd recommend fastservers as they are best in managing load balanced servers. Top class response time and highly skilled technical support is their biggest asset.I'd recommend fastservers as they are best in managing load balanced servers. Top class response time and highly skilled technical support is their biggest asset.
Maybe, but their network is amongst the worst, IMHO. I would not put anything remotely close to mission critical on their network, even if they paid me.Oh dear - so size automatically means better service... not a very good way of looking at it to be honest...
Not necessarily, but size does matter. Size means the company has money, money means the company is able to make certain investments to ensure reliability.A few years ago, I considered Servint, but then I found out that their idea of backups was copying your data each night to a 2nd HD on the same server. If that's still the case, then Servint isn't in the same class as Rackspace with their backups to a remote server with daily differentials.
Everything comes at a price..I'm sorry, however, I do not believe rackspace is #1I honestly believe there are many companies that perform better then rackspace.... however, it all depends on what you are looking for..Rackspace may be better then most at some things, but, they ceraintanly dont support the requirements of every market segment.....I'm sorry, however, I do not believe rackspace is #1I honestly believe there are many companies that perform better then rackspace.... however, it all depends on what you are looking for..Rackspace may be better then most at some things, but, they ceraintanly dont support the requirements of every market segment.....I agree. It is a very widely spread misconception that Rackspace is "#1". While they definitely are a good company, and operate a good network, they obviously are not the best for everyone's needs - no single company can be.I'm sorry, however, I do not believe rackspace is #1
How true. Rackspace has just become another brand name. Honestly, their management is good, but for the pricing they have been charging its not worth it IMO. I know several other companys that do a better job than Rack for much cheaper.I have never had a problem with BurstNET personally. Customer support can be slow at times but at least it is quality answers, and they always have gotten the job done. I think that they mix a good mid price range along with good support makes them pretty good.I have never had a problem with BurstNET personally. Customer support can be slow at times but at least it is quality answers, and they always have gotten the job done. I think that they mix a good mid price range along with good support makes them pretty good.
Biased much?I know several other companys that do a better job than Rack for much cheaper.
Which ones?Biased much?
I dont believe so. I have been with multiple providers, and I finaly found one that fit. I am just speking my opinion like everyone else.I dont believe so. I have been with multiple providers, and I finaly found one that fit. I am just speking my opinion like everyone else.
The reason I said that was due to your sig where you prominently display that your a BurstNET reseller and thus *can* financially profit from your posts in this thread.I can see where your coming from, I will be more careful with my posts. Thanks mripguru, I do appreciate it.While not as popular here another possible host to look at would be ev1servers *if* you brought on your own administrators. Ev1 has an excelent network and a special support network setup for their private rack (high end usually) clients to ensure quick access to a DC tech for hardware issues. They also offer all of the loadbalancer, firewall, secondary network or even tertiary network configurations you could want, even a fully redundant if you can afford it.
Now I am a little biased doing server administration myself but I think that in most cases it is ideal to get a 3rd party management group to work on your servers. If you go with a single host, Rackspace I would say is an exception but you are paying for it, and you start to have problems with them it can be really hard to move out if they are doing all of your technical work.
If you have your own group of 3rd party admins and you want to move to another host they should be able to support you and move you out just fine. If you are seriously looking at a lot of group as we have had with a few of our clients hosting some so called "web 2.0" sites. I do not know how serious you are but if you are looking at building up 10-20+ servers colocation will be cheaper in the long run and with a 3rd party admin they coudl help figure all of that out.
Anyways I am rambling a bit but I think that going with a very solid provider and hiring an administrator seperately may be a very wise long term solution.I can see where your coming from, I will be more careful with my posts. Thanks mripguru, I do appreciate it.
Your very welcome, and enjoy your stay at WHT.
Who do you think is #2?
I need scalability and support for load balancing, firewall configuration, etc. I've looked at softlayer, fastservers, liquidweb, and servint based on the reviews and recommendations here.
I'm willing to pay $400-$500 (with no setup fees) for a decent starter system. My site is new, but I expect it to grow quickly.
Thanks for any insights" need scalability and support for load balancing"
I would go with Softlayer, it makes it easy to add additional servers with the "second" private network..
I'm launching a site in 3 moths, and I plan on using them..servint might be #2I'd say servint personally.Just curious as to why you would say servint over SL, is it because they have been established longer?
Im asking to learn, Im new
ServInt's support is pretty great, but you cannot compare their network (which used to and still does [somewhat] have frequent outages) to Rackspace's 100% uptime network . . .Fastservers would be #2, for they have an outstanding friendly support .Oh dear - so size automatically means better service... not a very good way of looking at it to be honest...Yeah sir, Rackspace is the leader, zero down time, if you can pay over $400 monthly enjoy theirs managed servers.A few years ago, I considered Servint, but then I found out that their idea of backups was copying your data each night to a 2nd HD on the same server. If that's still the case, then Servint isn't in the same class as Rackspace with their backups to a remote server with daily differentials.Rackspace is top. I pay around 1500 for the same box that I can get from ServerMatrix for around 500$ and the 1500 does not include bandwidth which is like 65 cents a GB. But never had a problem with themJayI'd recommend fastservers as they are best in managing load balanced servers. Top class response time and highly skilled technical support is their biggest asset.I'd recommend fastservers as they are best in managing load balanced servers. Top class response time and highly skilled technical support is their biggest asset.Maybe, but their network is amongst the worst, IMHO. I would not put anything remotely close to mission critical on their network, even if they paid me.Oh dear - so size automatically means better service... not a very good way of looking at it to be honest...
Not necessarily, but size does matter. Size means the company has money, money means the company is able to make certain investments to ensure reliability.A few years ago, I considered Servint, but then I found out that their idea of backups was copying your data each night to a 2nd HD on the same server. If that's still the case, then Servint isn't in the same class as Rackspace with their backups to a remote server with daily differentials.
Everything comes at a price..I'm sorry, however, I do not believe rackspace is #1I honestly believe there are many companies that perform better then rackspace.... however, it all depends on what you are looking for..Rackspace may be better then most at some things, but, they ceraintanly dont support the requirements of every market segment.....I'm sorry, however, I do not believe rackspace is #1I honestly believe there are many companies that perform better then rackspace.... however, it all depends on what you are looking for..Rackspace may be better then most at some things, but, they ceraintanly dont support the requirements of every market segment.....I agree. It is a very widely spread misconception that Rackspace is "#1". While they definitely are a good company, and operate a good network, they obviously are not the best for everyone's needs - no single company can be.I'm sorry, however, I do not believe rackspace is #1
How true. Rackspace has just become another brand name. Honestly, their management is good, but for the pricing they have been charging its not worth it IMO. I know several other companys that do a better job than Rack for much cheaper.I have never had a problem with BurstNET personally. Customer support can be slow at times but at least it is quality answers, and they always have gotten the job done. I think that they mix a good mid price range along with good support makes them pretty good.I have never had a problem with BurstNET personally. Customer support can be slow at times but at least it is quality answers, and they always have gotten the job done. I think that they mix a good mid price range along with good support makes them pretty good.
Biased much?I know several other companys that do a better job than Rack for much cheaper.
Which ones?Biased much?
I dont believe so. I have been with multiple providers, and I finaly found one that fit. I am just speking my opinion like everyone else.I dont believe so. I have been with multiple providers, and I finaly found one that fit. I am just speking my opinion like everyone else.
The reason I said that was due to your sig where you prominently display that your a BurstNET reseller and thus *can* financially profit from your posts in this thread.I can see where your coming from, I will be more careful with my posts. Thanks mripguru, I do appreciate it.While not as popular here another possible host to look at would be ev1servers *if* you brought on your own administrators. Ev1 has an excelent network and a special support network setup for their private rack (high end usually) clients to ensure quick access to a DC tech for hardware issues. They also offer all of the loadbalancer, firewall, secondary network or even tertiary network configurations you could want, even a fully redundant if you can afford it.
Now I am a little biased doing server administration myself but I think that in most cases it is ideal to get a 3rd party management group to work on your servers. If you go with a single host, Rackspace I would say is an exception but you are paying for it, and you start to have problems with them it can be really hard to move out if they are doing all of your technical work.
If you have your own group of 3rd party admins and you want to move to another host they should be able to support you and move you out just fine. If you are seriously looking at a lot of group as we have had with a few of our clients hosting some so called "web 2.0" sites. I do not know how serious you are but if you are looking at building up 10-20+ servers colocation will be cheaper in the long run and with a 3rd party admin they coudl help figure all of that out.
Anyways I am rambling a bit but I think that going with a very solid provider and hiring an administrator seperately may be a very wise long term solution.I can see where your coming from, I will be more careful with my posts. Thanks mripguru, I do appreciate it.
Your very welcome, and enjoy your stay at WHT
.