I can only state my own experiences with Bluehost. As a longtime web designer I have been sending my clients to Bluehost for years. In fact I started a web service at that will do free setup and install of Wordpress if you open a account with Bluehost. I like to keep all my clients in one place. I have had no problems with Bluehost over the past five years. If a client's website starts to get many hits and more traffic than a standard shared hosting account can handle I then move them over to a real VPS. But if your just starting out Bluehost and a service like mine is a good choice.
I noticed a trend - I don't know if it's very new, but it can't be very old either - that quite a few people are looking for hosting and specifically ask that the host is not a reseller. Obviously they have somehow decided that a reseller is not a good choice for them.
A host that rents servers from a datacenter and then sells shared hosting and/or reseller hosting accounts or whatever other types of packages, is in fact reselling what it has bought from its provider. Despite that, it is generally regarded as a full-fledged host. Sure, they do take care that the servers are managed properly, that they are secure, they provide customer support, so they add to the original product that they have bought, but in essence they are resellers.
The first one is that the reliability, the uptime and server performance depend almost entirely on the upstream provider (the host behind the reseller). Considering that the reseller did a good job in finding a great upstream host, these things should be fine, but, unfortunately, in their search to get the best deal out there, many hosting resellers (if not most of them) end up being hosted for just a few bucks a month on highly overcrowded servers with stability and performance problems, frequent downtime etc. which will in turn translate into poor service for the end user.
The other major concern is the knowledgeability of the reseller. The very ease of becoming a reseller and the fact that almost anyone, or, as a WebHostingTalk user said it once, "anybody and his dog", can be a reseller, makes it very hard for some to trust a hosting reseller.
I would never say a reseller is a bad choice, but some things are not to be expected from a reseller. For example most resellers are a one man show and thus 24/7 365 days a year support can not be achieved without outsourcing some of it. This however is not a very cost effective solution for low volumes and this is why most resellers provide all the support themselves, which will obviously not be 24/7.
Also a reseller has only so much freedom on the server. A reseller cannot do some things and has to ask his own host to do them for him. That means it will take longer for those things to get solved.
On the plus side, a reseller often gets to know his customers and their needs and the client-reseller relationship often gets quite close. A friendly tone is worth for some people more than a 99.99% uptime statistic. If you're one of those people a reseller could very well be the right choice.
I am running some blogs on JustHost, a WordPress Web Hosting recommended by WordPress. You can visit my JustHost Review for reference.
I have a pro-bono client...a gardening group, say 200 or so not-too-tech savvy folks who need hosting. A very small (16M) simple-minded site with 2-3 PHP scripts for form responses and a Gmail userid for receiving public questions and answering them. Okay? They need a site where, if I get run over by a semi, they can take over for awhile if needed, until they find someone else.
ASO is only for ubergeeks, as I've seen in their forum (especially), their wiki, and somewhat in their tech support. Even *I* am no ubergeek, much less, my clients. Hostgator for their smallest plan, at the $4.95 price requires 3-years up front, else $8.95 per year: a bit much for my not-for-profit group. (And Lifehacker says, Hostgator is just a reseller for The Planet...)
I have a dedicated server that is the Q9400 and in the WHM Server Status area it states that in fact it is a Core2Quad Q9400 2.66ghz, however all four processor speeds are at 1998mhz is this correct? 2ghz and not in fact 2.66?
Planning on getting a new dedicated server with 4GB RAM, and a 500GB 7.2k SATA2 Hard Drive.
Which processor do you guys suggest? I know the Q6600 is older and runs hotter, but it has better specs than the Q8200. Would I really notice a difference if I'm only hosting static sites without any video streaming or anything?
I have read benchmark comparisons and found the Q9400 and even the Q9300 to be a better performing processor compared to the Q6600 processor, even with 2MB less L2 cache.
I am just wondering, how significant of a difference do you think the Q6600 processor and the Q9400 processor is in a server environment? Currently I have a Q6600 processor but am looking to upgrade my server, possibly to the Q9400 processor..will it be worth it? It's not that much more expensive..the only thing I am concerned about is the 2mb L2 cache loss.
My site is "kind-of" high traffic. We receive a lot of connections and visitors, and most-importantly my sites are run by PHP and MySQL databases.
Please help me choose the right processor. Currently I have 4GB DDR2-800mhz installed, which I will be upgrading to 8GB DDR2-800mhz, no matter what processor I choose to run.
I discovered that upgrading to 1ghz RAM is just not worth the extra money because the performance gain is very little and not noticeable.
Would anyone possibly know of a Intel Quad Core processor that has 8mb or more of L2 cache, 1333mhz FSB, and is comparable to the processors listed above and relatively the same in price?
on my dedicated server provider it said that i was ordering a Quad core Xeon 3320 2.5 ghz and when i got it and checked the server specs, it said Core2Quad Q9400 2.66 GHZ. I emailed them why it didnt say Xeon 3320, and this is their response
Intel repackaged the Core2Duo Q9300 as the Intel Xeon 3320. The only difference that Intel will verify is that the CPU will readout "Xeon X3320" instead of "Q9300". Both chips have the same components.
If you look at other sites, you will see them list other processors in the same way "Xeon XXXX 2.XGhz (Core2Duo/Quad)".
Ive had different opinions from different people saying they are the same and some saying that they are not. So im asking you guys now. Is this true?
i want to choose a new server,it will run with forums,
and general blogAhtml pages.
there are two spec. ==================== Q6600 4G RAM 250G SATAII HD*2 with raid 1 or 250G SATAII HD*3 with raid5 ==================== dual Xeon 604pin 3.2 GHz (irwindale) 4G RAM 36G SCSI HD*3 with raid5 ====================