I Mean It This Time

How cheap can you be? It sounds like they already are giving you a lot more for the money, and you want more for less.

If I didn't know any better, and I most likely don't, i'd say you must be one of those Lefty Democrats!

What is wrong with your ass?

Jamie

Those prices don't seem at all unreasonable, from what I know of the market.

The next step up is probably to buy a VPS "slice", and run your own operating-system installation and whatever web, mail, and domain software suits your fancy. There seem to be quite a few providers in the $10/month range, and a few less than that. Taking this approach should give you more flexibility and bandwidth, at a slightly higher economic cost, and the need to administer the system yourself.

I've had a number of problems with them over the years. One of the more serious was when they wanted their customers to switch from Plesk to Cpanel they offered to help you convert your stuff. They made a hash out of mine because the email accounts and forwards aren't handled the same way. So I hung back my account while they moved the other accounts under my hosting to the Cpanel server. Some time later *without* warning, they moved my account to a Cpanel server. They claim to have sent an email, but it never arrived. Now my email was a total mess and the original Plesk account was deleted so I couldn't even see what they had done.

Then to top it off, the remaining few accounts on the Plesk server got moved to a *different* server than the other accounts. So now I have two control accounts on two servers. When I need support they constantly mix up which server I am talking about.

The most recent issue of limiting outbound emails has been a problem for some time now. So rather than pay them more money until they find something else to screw up, I want to find a better provider.

I don't have a problem with the price, I think the price is good. But I don't feel I get good support, even for that price.

$36 for an ip with a good email reputation seems like a pretty good deal to me.

I know places that charge much more.

My website only costs me $4.99/month...

And I have around 200 E-mail addresses that I assign to each vendor, so I can track those who sell the address to spammers ;-} ...Jim Thompson

That's on top of the $45 a year for the hosting and the sometimes poor support.

No, I think there's a difference in meaning.

A "shared" server usually means one in which your domain, and Web service, and mail, are running alongside others in a single copy of an operating system environment, running on a single server (which probably has multiple CPU cores and disks). There's a single installed copy of the web-server software, email server, etc. If the software on the system is upgraded, the upgrade applies to all of the users on the shared system in the same way.

In effect, you have a user account (capable of handing multiple web domains and email addresses) on that shared server.

The next step would be "blade" servers - multiple, physically small servers (each with its own disk and CPU and memory), running side by side in the same rack space which might have been used by a single larger "shared" server. With blades, each blade runs its own operating system image from its own disk, with its own CPUs - two adjacent blades can be running entirely separate operating systems.

Now, the "virtual" part. Install a higher-end server whose hardware has "virtualization" support - it can split up its memory and set of CPUs so that they look like a bunch of smaller memory banks and CPU sets. It can intercept I/O operations going to the disk and the network interface, and (as with memory and CPU) make them "look like" a bunch of smaller disks, and a set of independent network interfaces.

Once you have this, you can "divide" a single larger server, into what appears for most purposes as a bunch of smaller, independent servers (often known as "slices"). Each one boots its own operating system image (which can be different for different slices), has its own set of applications installed, its own "network interface" with a unique Ethernet and IP address, and is administered separately. The slices don't all have to be the same size. It's a lot like running on a small blade server, except that the "slices" are virtualized portions of a single larger server rather than being physically-separate devices.

This approach means that you don't need N separate power supplies, or disks, or motherboards, to support N different slices running as N different host systems. It's also usually possible to "migrate" a slice from one VM-host computer to another without loss (and sometimes without disruption of service - "live" migration). If the server your slice is running on needs to be service or upgraded, the data center migrates your slice to another host and you stay on the air.

It's the approach I've been using for the last 3.5 years. I retired my stand-alone server, and bought a virtual "slice" on a server run by a local cooperative group (I just helped them move to a new data center yesterday). For under $100 a year I get what behaves like a 3 GHz CPU, 1 gig of RAM, 24 gigs of disk, my own IP address, and more net bandwidth than I need.

Of course, since it's my own personal Linux install, I have to maintain it myself, and fix any (non-hardware-related) problems which may occur.

There is another level of virtualisation that you are missing here, "containers". There each "container" has its own namespace, process space, users, filesystem area, and networking space. But they all run on the same OS kernel, and share memory, cpu resources, etc. This is far cheaper than full OS virtualisation because you don't need to dedicate any ram or other hardware resources to particular virtual machines, and it is more efficient in use because there is no need for any sort of I/O interception. But like virtual servers, each container can have its own IP address, and its own software. "Docker" is the popular version of containers, but they've been around for a decade at least (and the more limited "chroot jail" is many decades old).

However, for the price in question here, he is much more likely to get name-based hosting on a single large Apache installation.

Cheers

Klaus

I'm a big fan of Pair Networks, pair.com A no-nonsense provider since 1995. They're in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense get-the-job-done city. Low cost, thoroughly competent.

They don't support multiple logins for multiple websites. You have to buy a plan for each one.

Let me repeat my suggestion, Pair Networks, pair.com A no-nonsense provider since 1995. They're located in Pittsburgh, a no-nonsense get-the-job-done city. Low cost, and thoroughly competent.

I am looking at them. I initially sent them a message because they don't have chat and didn't get a reply. They are emailing me now so we are getting to the crux of the matter. Their site really doesn't describe their hosting in any useful way which was part of the problem.

I just sent them a reply. We'll see how good their response is after 5 PM. BTW, they offer a choice of Pittsburgh or Denver for the hosting site. Any idea of the difference?

They give you a complete powerful linux server system, but I think it's up to you how to use it. It's low-cost but totally powerful and functional.

I am revisiting this with a higher dollar figure trying to find a host with good support. So far it has been a day and a half after I sent dreamhost a message asking questions their web site doesn't answer and all I've gotten is an automated response saying it has been 24 hours but they haven't forgotten about me. I don't think dreamhost is the service I want.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The low cost packages are hosting packages. They supply their software to host web sites and manage accounts. This is not a VPS and I'm not looking for a VPS. On top of the complexity it costs at *lot* more, starting at $360 a year. A web hosting reseller package is just $72 a year. Even if I wanted a VPS, they are about double the going rate.

They do seem responsive, but it's just not what I'm looking for.

I pay $25 a year to host three web-page domains. The first costs $11/year, the rest are cheaper. Multiple email servers, file-storage, etc., add another small annual amount. I have full access to (a fraction of) one of their servers. I'm not familiar with the term VPS. Maybe that's what I have, however it's very inexpensive.

You won't find better support than Panix, the oldest ISP in NYC. But I think you are looking for cheaper folks...

-- A host is a host from coast to snipped-for-privacy@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close.......................... Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

I ended up at mightweb.net. They seem to be 100% better than my old ISP. Once in a while I hear my email program complain that it can't connect to the email server. That used to be my que to contact my hosting provider about the server not being available. Now it is an indication my web connection is not working right. :)

I don't think I've even used their formal support channel. When I have an issue I contact them through the chat window and the problem is worked. Very friendly, supportive and informed. I think so far there was one time when they could have understood there was a better way to do what I was trying to do and didn't suggest it. But that's ok, when you are on chat they are conversing with other people and you don't get

I'm very happy with mightweb.net and will be closing my account with eboundhost.com as soon as one of my friends can move her business over to the mightweb.net server.