I'm currently running two classified ad sites with a php script and a mysql database. Both just launched, but I expect them to have decent traffic within 1 year.
Here are the two options I'm currently considering:
1. a fully managed dedicated server such as Wiredtree provides. This will roughly cost me between $250 and $350/month.
2. go with Rackspace Cloud. Take advantage of their $100/month and then just pay as you go as traffic increases.
I am considering a move from Pair Networks to Rackspace. When I talked to the folks at Rackspace, the guy thought I was a good fit for their Cloud Sites product.
I have several Wordpress blogs, the busiest one doing around 15,000 views daily. I also have 3 vBulletin forums, once which is pretty busy and doing around 400,000 views per month. I also run a few member sites, blog powered and using Amember Pro.
I'm wondering if this is just too much to throw on the Cloud. I've heard that disk I/O is a little slower on the Cloud, and vBulletin is pretty intensive on the database.
Another option I heard is to get a dedicated server with Rackspace, host the databases and anything else I want on that server, but put the code base for the busiest sites into the Cloud in order to take advantage of the load balancing.
Any feedback?
Pair Networks has been great, but I started looking around yesterday because they were having a hard time making one of my servers cope right with the busy blog. Server load through the roof and I was frustrated. I have a feeling I'm overpaying Pair for servers which may be a little dated here. Hence, my lookint into Rackspace.
So, feedback on the Cloud or Cloud w/ Dedicated? Any other pretty busy forums/blogs you know of running in Rackspace Cloud Sites?
I wanted to share my experience with Rackspace Cloud, till now their support and service are a+, the control panel used to be slow but not it's fixed, the only problem i faced till now was with their control panel file managed but it's not that important as you can use ftp instead, i have cloud sites account with them to host my site Rapid Zone and i strongly recommend them.
I am now with Rackspace's new cloud servers. I understand that they are still under a "beta testing" but I decided to give it a go.
Over all I like it. There are however some annoying parts which I will list first.
1. DNS manager issues... I have many DNS records for my domain and it seems that the DNS manager isn't so forgiving. It gives you the ability (or you think so) to delete an individual record however I have never been able to do that. It would always return with an error which is quite annoying. So I moved my DNS servers to another location and have been happy since.
2. Chat support is too much like dell tech support. The first person you get doesn't really know what he is talking about (I have been talking with them a few times about the above mentioned DNS issues and they confirmed multiple bugs within the system but this was at level 2 support and it was quite annoying having to explain the problem to everyone that I spoke too) What I ended up doing is going with Slicehosts chat room where I always found a very helpful hand (they are the same company so it's not stealing). They helped me with many of my issues.
3. The documents/wiki is very hard to find. If I didn't get a link to it from a tech support guy then I wouldn't of known it was there. All it is, is a wiki formatted silcehosts article repo. But it is quite helpful. My tip is to make it more visible.
Overall I am happy with the speed and stability of the server. So thanks Slicehost/Rackspace for your service.
Am trying to choose a shared host. Either RackSpace Cloud Sites ($100 a month) or MediaTemple ($20 a month) or MediaLayer ($19 a month).
I was really inclined to MediaTemple but I read some real bad review about it. Am wondering what has your experience been with any of the above. In Cloud Sites, do the 10000 CPU cycles get over quickly?
The title basically says/asks it all. I believe Mosso initially had no Rackspace affiliation other than using Rackspace's services, and then subsequently became a subsidiary of Rackspace. Now, over the past few days, Mosso has become The Rackspace Cloud.
Given Rackspace's reputation, I have to believe this is good news, but I figured I'd toss it out there for the pros to discuss.
I've thought about taking the plunge to Mosso/Rackspace Cloud but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I wouldn't use anywhere close to the full $100 package at the start but I'd probably grow into it within 6-12 months, as my sites get back online and grow. Thus, I'm kind of facing the old chicken-and-egg conundrum: I don't want to pay $100 for $10 worth of usage, but at the same time, moving sites -- and especially IMAP email accounts -- is such a pain in the rear end, I don't want to keep moving every time my sites/traffic grows.
I wish these guys had a $25 or $50 starter plan from which users could upgrade. I'd be all over that. (I know about their lower-cost Cloud Server packages (or whatever it's called), but I'm not tech-savvy enough for unsupported hosting.)
I am very interest about RackSpace Cloud site technology
http://www.mosso.com/cloud.jsp
Does any one over here using RackSpace Cloud Site
I have couple of sites hosted on a one virtual dedicated server, I get total about 100K+ hits per month. About 70GB bandwidth usage per month. Is cloud site technology is a good choice for me?
I've just spent 20-odd minutes on the live chat to someone at SoftLayer to ask if there is any advantage using Cloud Servers over a VPS / Dedicated for a WHM/CPanel system. Unfortunately I didn't receive any answer other than "WHM would work in a Cloud server with certain types of OS only". Strange answer.
I currently rent a dedicated server from HiVelcity, and I'm very unhappy with it (unstable as hell, faulty hardware, etc.)
I am about to launch a new web application running on LAMP (P=PHP, i.e. Symfony)... And I'm expecting some heavy traffic on release day... I already know my current server can't survive being Dugg (been on the homepage several times), and was wondering maybe I should consider the so-called cloud hosting services being offered... Or just go with a new more powerful dedicated server.
What do you guys think would be best for a PHP+MySQL heavy site that is expecting a rush of traffic?
Also, if I choose something like (mt)Grid-Service, or Mosso, do I sacrifice future customizability (e.g. Sphinx, MemCache)? I have to say the ease of use is tempting for a non-linux guy like me, but I don't want to be constrained in the future because of current choices.
I have a dedicated server at rackspace.com for over a year now, and my contract with them has expired.
I'm wondering if I am paying too much, so I was hoping others who have a dedicated server at rackspace could say how much they are paying.
I have a dedicated server, intel xeon, 4 gb of ram, and 2,000MB bandwidth and pay $1,400 per month. I feel that is over-priced, how much are you paying?
we are about to launch the public version of our website, and we are having trouble deciding which type of server to start with. We've reading a lot and contacting all providers to get a quote, but we haven't been able to take a decision. Maybe somebody with more experience can help us...
- most of our users are going to be (for the time being) in Spain. We plan to move to other markets in the future, but not before one year.
- we understand that the server location (or it's IP address) is important in terms of SEO, that's why we've been looking into spanish providers or providers that offer spanish IPs. This SEO thing is the main reason we have ignored Amazon ec2, which, on the paper, seems to be a very good option for websites that expect to increase their traffic rapidly.
- we are going to start with very few users, but we expect to be in >5000 users/day very soon. Hopefully, we will keep a steady growth for the next months, but this is something we can't anticipate for sure.
- our website is based on PHP&MySQL. Each user consumes quite a lot of memory, and queries to the database are very frequent and quite heavy in processing. On the local version (iMac - 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - 2GB RAM), a typical query from a single user takes around 2 seconds. We still have to do some optimization, but there is not much room for it left...
- our budget is 150-200 Euro/Month, but we would be able to increase it in case we find out it is needed in order to have a decent website.
- we are no experts in Linux sys-admin, but we can do the basic stuff, such as installing, configuring Apache, etc.
Therefore, we need 'something' that is powerfull enough to satisfy our users and that is easily&transparently scalable in case we have a sudden increase of users. From our readings on this forum and others, we understand that VPSs are not powerfull enough for us. On the other hand, dedicated servers are not easy to adapt to an increase in the number of users. Finally, in Spain we have found that Arsys is offering what they call 'cloud server', which looks similar to Amazon's ec2. We haven't been able to find any objective review on this Arsys offering, so we don't know how good it is. Anyone has worked with this system?
I noticed some cloud computing service providers, like, amazon, gogrid, etc. are all based on XEN server, is there any provider offers cloud computing on real dedicated server?
another question is, anyone knows the difference between traditional cluster and cloud computing. I did not see big difference based on their own description.
im looking to spend $1000USD per month on a dedicated windows server (mission critical). But not sure which one to go with, which one is reliable rackspace, peer1, liquidweb or webair?
p.s I dont really need managed webhosting, mainly require a good network with 100% up time, hardware support and server monitoring alert.
I have been very interested in Mosso for quite some time, though Cloud Sites didn't seem quite right for what I needed with the compute cycles they had. However, their fairly new Cloud Sites looks very interesting, and their sales people at least will have me believe load balancing with several server instances will be superior to my current dedicated server.
Right now I have a server with Liquid Web that costs me $424/mo and 4x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz with 4GB of RAM. The average load on the server is anywhere from 30% at low times to 70-80% at peak times and memory usage is usually 20-50%. On average there are about 1000 mysql queries per second as the site is very ajax-intensive (hence Cloud Sites being way too expensive).
I don't really know the difference and technical side of all of this, I just program and do the business side of things, but I really like what Mosso has and am wondering if I would get a performance boost going with their Cloud Servers (Going with something like 8 server instances at 512mb RAM each @ only around $200/mo including bandwidth). Also, would I want to load balance all 8, or do something like 4 running the mysql and the other 4 serving the actual site?
I'm planning on launching a php-based web application within a month or two and am weighing different hosting options. I was almost certain with my plan to use two dedicated servers (one for web, one for db) but I can't help reading about all of these new grid/cloud/utility hosting solutions that promise instant scalability and deployment - which sounds like a blessing. I know there is a lot of garbage and marketing hype so I felt I should ask what the real deal is. Are these services reliable, worth using, really that easy to use, powerful, etc? I was looking at gogrid's demo videos and to instantly launch a few web servers, a db server, load balancer, etc, in 15 minutes for 30% of the cost - I can't ignore it.
I've got a dedicated server through Liquid Web. I can't say enough about how great the reliability and service has been since I switched over to them a number of months ago.
Nevertheless, with the advent of cloud hosting, I'm intrigued by the idea of paying for what I actually use on a server rather than having way more capacity than I need 90% of the day.
I've looked around here and there's a bit of talk about it but it doesn't seem like folks are scrambling into it and it also appears that the offereings are still relatively immature.
I really don't have the time to devote to tweaking, etc or figuring out something really complicated.
I'll stick to my dedicated server if it means tons of extra work or potential downtime or massive frustration but I wanted to get some feedback from the community about whether or not there are some stable cloud hosting options that are emerging that might be worth considering.
Starting point: a working site using a shared IPv4, dedicated IPv6, and SSL. HTTP and HTTPS work, the latter only using SNI of course.
The good news: If I simply allocate an IP resource of 1 to a subscription it is pulled from the pool, assigned to the service node, assigned to the web site, DNS is updated, and the site is automatically changed to using a Dedicated IPv4 and Dedicated IPv6.
The bad news: visitors land on the default web site of the service node, with the default SSL certificate.
Other info: I can't ping the new IP, even though it shows in "ip a l" and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:0. [edited]
After the IP assignment, it is still installed, and /etc/httpd/conf/plesk.conf.d/ip_default/domainname.conf shows the new certificate is being used.
However, a second set of VirtualHost entries is created in server.conf for this IP for ports 80 and 443, with NameVirtualHost enabled on the new IP. The port 443 entry uses the default certificate. Apache's setup this default VirtualHost entry will override the web site configuration because Apache is listening on port 443 with the wrong cert.
If I go to "Change webspace settings" and toggle to Shared IPv4, Dedicated IPv6 the site works again via HTTPS, and Dedicated IPv4 and Dedicated IPv6 breaks it again. Setting the SSL cert to None and back again does not work.
Setting the SSL cert to None, changing to a dedicated IP, and enabling SSL results in the server being inexplicably inaccessible...browsers no longer connect to either the default site or the correct site, and I don't see any entries in the vhosts's logs.
on the optimal setup for a new clients project. We currently host with eUKhost and have been very happy with them in terms of support. They offer a range of hi-end dedi servers but as with everything in life, cost is an issue.
I know that obviously if money was not an issue, the last server would be the best, but I wonder if this is absolutely necessary for the website. Here are the anticipated site specs....
Portal site with anticipated traffic of around 5,000 visitors online at any one time, searching around 1,000,000 business listings and around 500,000 classifieds ads. Most listings or ads would have multiple pictures on their pages and there will be a reasonable amount of advertising on each page.
My question is whether the system will function adequately with a lesser processor and more Ram, or whether its the processor that gets the database searching speedily.
I own a site that is MySQL driven, shared hosting is no way to go now with over 100 guests on the site, and alot of MySQL usage...
My question is, do we need a dedicated server? or the site would function great with 99% uptime on a VPS?
Another issue is, the site gets DDoS / DoS attacks between now and then, haters out there... so would a VPS be able to stay up against the attacks? can I install CSF with no problems? or any other firewall?
Let me know what you think, and if VPS is the way to go, please suggest some VPS hosting providers...
Does Image hosting site requires a Powerful server or just enough bandwidth?
I am not sure if I should get a more powerful SERVER or increase my current BANDWIDTH Cap For people who has a Image/File hosting type website.. what kind of server are you using?
I'm managing our business websites and we're presently using budget shared web hosting.
As the business grows, the uptime of our websites (and web server) is important to the bosses.
I'm wondering whether we should go with managed dedicated web hosting (expensive), VPS hosting (not too familiar with it) or go with a reseller hosting account?
