Looking to actually do a site

[mikey.hill]

If you guys want to know what the big boys use it's not shared hosting. Why? because they put 100-200 websites on the same server and whenever another site thats on the same server your on has issues, your site has issues as well. Cheap - Yes, but good quality -no.

Shared Hosting = having a cubicle in a building
VPS Hosting = having your own floor in a building

I do quite a bit of server administration, programming and development and for my clients who need a good web server that's cheap I would never recommend any shared host. Instead check out prgmr.com and linode.com ... Linode is around 19/month for a VPS server and Prgmr.com is about 8/month for a slightly better VPS. Both of these require an initial setup which for me takes about 1-2 hours, for someone less experienced it can take a while. I prefer linode.com because they have a nice control panel that lets you manage the details of your server, make backups, dns, accounts etc... Linode/prgmr.com and slicehost(linode but costs more) is the best value per buck if your willing to do a little work initially. You have full control over your server and what gets installed, you can pick and OS(rhel, centos, debian etc...), manage your DNS, etc...

If you guys really want good hosting sign up for your VPS at linode and contact me. I do full server installations for $100(I charge clients through the companies I work for 200 for the same install).

I install the following:
Linux Kernel + OS(centos, fedora, debian or ubuntu)
Nginx, lighttpd or apache web server
Mysql or postresql
sftp(ftp is insecure - all ftp clients have an sftp option so this requires no change to you)
PHP
Setup for 1 website(this server can handle additional sites easily - my linode runs about 10 at any one time without a hiccup).
GIT/SVN access if you need it.
Server monitoring
database,webroot backups like any server
For email I do NOT recommend using your server. You should check into using google apps ... it's free ... they have mobile apps for you cell ... excellent spam protection and pretty much way more than any host will be able to offer. If you're not interested in using google apps I can setup zimbra(defacto standard replacement for MS exchange) for an additional fee. They have a nice web interface but it really eats away at your webservers ability to do what it's meant for(host web pages).

Anyways just thought I'd put that out there. PM me if you'd like to set one up.

[Inspira]

Hey Camo - you seem to be big on Joomla, you should check out Rochen. They're one of the top hosts in the Joomla community and have a great reseller program for designers.

[Camo_Duck]

Thanks Inspira...

Appreciate the heads up...I do prefer to use Joomla, it makes it so I dont have to reinvent the wheel every time I create a site that helps me stay very competitive, & it makes for easy updates for the site owners.

Im pretty happy over at dreamhost.com I have a virtual private server over there & give my clients a years free hosting on it with their design job. If I ever get unhappy with it Ill put Rochen on the list when I go shopping

Regarding what Mikey said a VPS is killer but for 99% of small business websites shared hosting is just fine, using his analogy most small businesses don't need an entire floor, a cubicle works.... if it turns out not to be enough.... great, business is booming and you can always upgrade

-----
Bob Rooney

[Inspira]

I also like to use Joomla, easy to set up, easy to skin and easy for clients to make changes. They also have some great extensions.

Agreed on the hosting. A quality shared host will be able to isolate sites with "issues" so they won't affect others.

[mikey.hill]

Originally Posted by Camo_Duck

Regarding what Mikey said a VPS is killer but for 99% of small business websites shared hosting is just fine, using his analogy most small businesses don't need an entire floor, a cubicle works.... if it turns out not to be enough.... great, business is booming and you can always upgrade

-----
Bob Rooney

I agree that shared hosting is a great deal, but when you look at things from a security perspective as well as site responsiveness and the 'promises' that shared hosts make you it's really the bottom of the barrel. Yeah, if your in a pinch and thats all you can afford go for it. But for a business, 20/month is nothing for quality hosting that is both secure and provides quality responsiveness.

The security issues I'm talking about are:
1. With shared hosting many users have access to common kernel files via PHP/ASP/Perl etc... these platforms are on every server(unless you run a VPS/dedicated and choose not to run these apps) and time and time again a security hole has been discovered that allows malicious people access to your files, including your website files. It's no suprise to me when I hear about the latest round of viruses that are spread across websites that most of them are on shared hosts(and like today's wordpress debacle).

2. Session data - most apps store session data in /tmp or some alternate but common location. If one host on your server has access to sessions all hosts have the same access. This won't apply to most websites, but say for instance your running an application like wordpress or joomla. Session data store in /tmp can be replicated by a user that knows what they're doing - and this includes the possiblity of taking over your users sessions and reading their personal data.

3. Browsing the filesystem via PHP/ASP. Some hosts block these commands but many do not to give the impression that they are a full functioning web server. Not only does this expose your filesystem it allows for users to read permissions for those files and target those that are insecure.

Bottom line - shared hosting is like being in a cubicle. Everyone in the office(all the other website owners and anyone who has access to the server) can go through your filesystem, your users information and with a little bit of knowledge can change your files. I'm sorry but it's just a bad system for serving websites ... cheap though. Do yourself a favor and get a vps.

[Kiril]

IMO, there is absolutely no reason for any site you will see a landscape related company put together that will ever need a dedicated server. Lets be realistic people, we are talking for most a sites a handful of static pages, not a full blow store front with ecommerce.

@mikey

While your concerns are valid, they are easily handled on a shared host by someone who knows what they are doing. Please stop trying to sell people products they don't need!

[mikey.hill]

Originally Posted by Kiril

IMO, there is absolutely no reason for any site you will see a landscape related company put together that will ever need a dedicated server. Lets be realistic people, we are talking for most a sites a handful of static pages, not a full blow store front with ecommerce.

@mikey

While your concerns are valid, they are easily handled on a shared host by someone who knows what they are doing. Please stop trying to sell people products they don't need!

Haha... I'm not trying to sell anyone anything...If you look at my post I clealy gave away my hosting provider which is something would no do for someone I was trying to sell hosting to...anyone who can read and has a little patience can setup a server there...I was simply informing people on what guys like me and other developers/admins who know what how bad shared hosting is and what good hosting entails... I am a unix/linux admin(I manage about 20+ linux/BSD servers) and know the dangers of shared hosting and have watched as many of clients use them and have their site at some point crash and burn. Which would you rather pay? 20/month for shared hosting that's secure and reliable or 5/month for shared + the cost of repairing your website at whatever your designer/developer/admin charges + downtime + additional fees if you have to move hosts + the cost of bad site performance at peak times. It's a common misconception that shared hosting is secure and 'good enough' but it's a bad frame of mind.

VPS is not a dedicated server. VPS is a virtualized environment of which there are no links to/from each others operating system. I'm sorry but you are wrong and time and time again it has been shown that shared hosting is the bottom of the barrel and is really a bad solution. You really do get what you pay for and it cracks me up to see people signing up for these services left and right simply because people like you who don't understand it are telling them so.

[Kiril]

Funny, I know hordes of people on shared servers that haven't had a single problem due to the items you mentioned. BTW, VPS is still run on the same "box", so with respect to resources, they are still shared. So actually, it is your analogy of cubical to floor that is wrong.

All that aside, lets see a show of hands for the number of people running dynamic sites.

[mikey.hill]

Originally Posted by Kiril

Funny, I know hordes of people on shared servers that haven't had a single problem due to the items you mentioned. BTW, VPS is still run on the same "box", so with respect to resources, they are still shared. So actually, it is your analogy of cubical to floor that is wrong.

All that aside, lets see a show of hands for the number of people running dynamic sites.

VPS although on the same box is not shared... Paravirtualization is an entirely different concept that has nothing in common w/ shared hosting. Check out wikipedia UML or XEN virtualization but in short the benefits of using virtualization(para which is most commonly used):

lower overhead than full virtualization
each user can have his/her own kernel and modules
kernel.org kernels support running under Xen (as a DomU) since 2.6.23

and with credit scheduling:
work-conserving
very lightweight
accounting thread passes out credits periodically
weight=memory
dom0 weight

This is exactly the reason why services such as amazon aws, ecs have had such success in this environment. Comparing shared hosting to a virtualized env. is like comparing nail clippers and lawnmowers.

[Kiril]

Same hardware = same resources. It not only is similar, with respect to a given server, it is almost exactly the same. Only so much CPU and memory to go around now isn't there. All the accounts must share a given servers hardware resources, be they virtual or not. This is what kills shared servers, lack of resources .... and as an administrator you damn well know this.

Also, regardless of what you want people to think here, running virtual hosts consumes more resources than not running them. Yes, there are ways to make it faster, and it is most certainly more secure, however it does require more server hardware resources, and in many cases is considerably slower than running without virtualization.

You still have not presented a logical argument why a company with a handful of static pages needs to fork out the extra cash for a VPS.