I've got a decent server, quad processor, 12GB ram, terabyte of hot swappable RAID 10 disk. Its at an Equinix site. They provide UPS, backup generators, etc and fiber to the usual major backbone folks.
But its a lights out facility. I want someone else to handle backups, rebooting when needed, etc.
I'd like to let someone else provide the service. Use my 2U server or I can rent yours.
Need MySql, Apache, Tomcat, SSL, Java, ssh access. I've got wildcard certs for SSL, domain registered, etc.
I'm guessing that I can get this for about $500 per month with low bandwidth (this is an IT application, not peer-to-peer or torrents.). Let me know if my budget is off base. I think one megabyte/second sustained over the month, 95% averaged is suffiicent. At least until the business grows, we can then talk about getting racks of blades at higher cost.
I'm thinking about hosting service business, and now I'd like to know your opinion about what professional host must have/offer that can be attractive.
I have a Joomla website where I embed videos from Youtube and others video sharing sites hosted on a shared server. During the last month I got my account suspended because of high CPU usage. That's a bit strange to me because the videos aren't hoted on the website. I have also uninstall some components (example JoomlaWatch that provide realtime stats) and things seems to go better untill yesterday when I got another notice from the server admin.
They have offered me an unmanaged VPS for 8/month ($12) or a managed one for around £30/month ($45). These are the features of the unmanaged one:
10GB Disk Space 200GB Bandwidth 256MB Dedicated RAM 512MB Burst RAM 2 IP Addresses Provided CENTOS 5 LXAdmin Included Free
I'm looking for a new hosting as $45 are too much for my pockets and I'm not able to manage a server. The server must be managed...not sure if a "professional shared" or a VPS. These are my needs:
- Space: 512MB/1GB is enough - Bandwidth: at least 70GB - MySQL database (around 25 MB) - Email Some details about the site: - around 1500 UV per day (this can go up to 5000 per day) - bandwidth around 1.5/2GB per day - users connected at the same time around 30 (max 100/150) As stated above my current problem is about CPU and not users. In fact I got the high usage with only 20 users connected at the same time.
Anybody knows a good hosting where my site could work?
I have a client who has came to me for advice on his web site. I own a dedicated server and manage it using PLESK. I do pretty well managing it but I'm definitely not an expert on hosting by any means. So I need your help.
He is starting a new web site and he is going to do radio advertising on a lot of stations and expects to get a lot of hits. The web site seems to be pretty small with only a few pages of text and minimal pictures, so I don't think it will use that much just by the site being so small.
But anyway, I want him and me to feel comfortable that the site is not going to go down no matter how many hits he gets. How do I guesstimate this?
What are some good hosting companies that offer high bandwidth and protect you from overage charges -- or at least charge little for overages. I'm looking to spend less than $80/month. Also, do you have any idea: How many users will 10GB bandwidth cover if it's only a 5 page site with one picture on each page and 5 paragraphs of text just to get an idea.
Is there any shared host which can easily drive a wordpress blog with 100,000-150,000 unique visitors every month?
The blog in question has wp-supercache and is quite a bit tweaked and consumes roughly 30-50GB of bandwidth every month (with mod deflate enabled on server). My priorities are good uptime, fast servers and network (especially to India) and good customer support.
I have a blog that gets about 50,000 unique users a month and I'm looking for a host that would fit the bill. I'm using wordpress so that's obviously a requirement, but also I would like RoR support. Other than that I'm pretty open. My fear is just that I'll get relegated to a slow server or have my account suspended. My budget is really whatever I need to pay. I'd like to find something at $15 a month or under but I'm willing to pay up to $50 or more if need be.
I'm planning on growing the traffic more in the future so I'm not sure if I should just go for dedicated hosting now or wait. I've checked out hostgator and they seem to have good reviews and fit the bill well, I'm just not sure if they are suited for high traffic sites or not.
I know this is the Web Hosting Forums; but I'm hoping you guys can help me out with a related problem:
I am looking for a good, high quality email host. My wishes/requirements:
- IMAP [required] - SSL encryption [required] - Good, server-side filtering/sorting [required] - Procmail/Sieve [both pluses] - Hosting on an OSS stack [a plus] - No bandwidth limits [1] - No message transfer limits [2]
[1] I have 350-400 Mb of email stored at the moment, and I take backups. I hear good things about Fastmail; but I fear their bandwidth limits wouldn't cut it, even at the Enhanced plan (three backups, and it'd be done, basically).
[2] I am not referring to attachment/message size limits. I mean caps on how many messages I send or receive in a given timeframe. If the limits are really high (in this, Fastmail is fine), then I don't mind. But I've seen some hosts that have pretty low ones. Subscribe to a couple mailing lists and...poof.
I currently am running an email server on a VPS (Postfix/Dovecot/Procmail). But if anyone has any suggestions, I'd really like to hear them.
I am leasing servers for about 2 years now, and now I wanted to start with colocation. I am selling VPS so I need VPS nodes. I would buy node with 32Gb RAM, latest Xeons, Hardware Raid 10, etc. so I figured that it is better to colocate in the long run.
Can you suggest me best colocation company in terms of quality of bandwidth and support.
I really need prompt support, ticket answered in 15 minutes, and only premium bandwidth.
Also, is there company in USA which assembles rack servers for a fee. I would like to pay them for the components I find on newegg and their fee, and that they order the components, assemble the hardware, test it, and send it to DC.
I need a budget chicago server -- I know, very difficult to find (last company I went with was Singlehop, and they're great, but I can't afford it for what I'd wish to do.)
Anyways, here's what I need my server for --
Some personal, non busy websites(my webhost that I've been using is being let go by me :[ I need this server for it reliably.) CentOS5 or RH4 is preferred. cPanel is required
I intend to host a few websites, and TWO counter-strike 1.6 servers (not busy or CPU intense really) So..
I purchased some services from hostfresh.com but after waiting 3 days for my hosting to be set up (just basic web host space) i decided to switch to wrzhost.com where i was ready to go within 10 min of buying the services. I sent a support ticked to hostfresh(before i asked for the refund) and a lady told me to contact sales , when i told her i was getting no reply she again told me to contact sales so i bought else where. I emailed sales and billing 2 times each and sent 2 support tickets to them over a week and a half but have gotten no reply at all and when i sent a ticket to the lady that was actually replying , she now wont reply to my tickets also.
Anyone else have a problem with them and how did you get your refund?
I've been with JaguarPc since 1999 and I just realized that through all my years here I never gave them a shout out. These guys are very helpful and it's amazing the type of service they offer for the money. I have 2 virtual private servers with them and absolutely no issues. They manage the entire server for me for $33.95 a month. So if anybody needs good hosting:
I need a company to register my domain, and then forward emails and urls to my actual site that is somewhere else. I don't need any actual web hosting or email pop (at the moment). My main requirement is reliability.
The company I currently use bounces some email to me and forwards other email to a black hole. They're also not replying to my mail, so it's time to leave. BTW, this is a company that has generally excellent reviews.
I am running a SQL test server here that is piping HUGE amounts of data for a test project I am running.
Approximately 30 queries a second - constantly. That's over 2.5M queries a day -- so we are talking big (I think?)
I am currently running this test on a
AMD Phenom 9300, 4GB RAM - SATA 500GB HDD and I am running MySQL 5.0.51a i386 on CentOS
I have programmed a process control for our applications purpose - basically it controls the launching of our SQL intense applications, and stops launching when the Load is greater than 2.5
I have plans to optimize the number of queries (I will build in a cache to some of the applications - and run INSERT statements all together) however I am looking for SQL tweaks that will improve performance. Would running the 64bit version work better?
what happens when I have 2 DNS servers on my domain and 1 fails? around 50% of the access fails... or they detect DNS timeout and try the other one, so 50% of the access would just take more time?
after months of disruption moving servers into a new data centre, our once reliable colocation company has now had nearly 6 hours downtime in the last 16 hours. So much for network redundancy.
Basically have 2 hosting accounts at different providers...each set-up for the same domain name...and then somehow wtih DNS make it so if host #1 goes down traffic goes to host #2 (which would basically be a splash screen explaining that host #1 is down and will be back soon).
DNS isn't my strong point, but I do know you can do this with MX records...so if the first server fails it tries the next until it gets a working one or reaches the end of the list. I'd just like to do it is A records.
It wouldn't be as simple as setting the nameservers like this would it?
Would it use the host1 nameservers as long as they're online, and if not failover to the host2 nameservers? If so, great, but what if the host1 nameservers are online but the server itself is not.
What are the smaller shops doing for switch redundancy? We have all our machines on dual Com Ed feeds but most switches in the $1k-$3k range only have one power supply. We recently had a power strip go flakey and of course the switch was plugged into it.
Is the best solution getting two switches and hooking each machine up to both? How hard is that to setup in Linux? I've used keepalived for whole machine failover but not for network failover.
I host several web clients that were recently impacted by the crap at ThePlanet. As I think about how to be more redundant (and repetitive) I'm not sure of my options.
What's the best practice to ensure that if you have a server at a data center that goes out, that you can (somewhat) easily switch over to a different server? I suppose one solution is to have 2 servers at 2 physical locations, and then you could just change the DNS record in the event of failure, but is there another solution I'm not aware of? Is there a good resource I can goto to read up on this info?
I am planning to buy a dedicated server and a shared server from a hosting company. Basically I want to have a redundant server so that if one file server goes down, there is no downtime.
Somehow the servers would need to be constantly synchronized so that the files saved to one are immediately saved to the other server as well.
Can somebody told me how to setup the 2 server so that my dedicated server can serve as the main server and if the dedicated server is down, the shared server can automatically be activated and visitors of my website will auto be redirect to the shared server.
Do i need to setup any backup DNS too so that when the dedicated server is down, it will auto redirect the user to the shared server.
