Getting the right web host for your business site

[DDSvpsHost]

When it comes to launching or re-launching a website, there's a big difference between renting and buying.

Most business websites are renters - meaning that they live inside of a Web hosting company rather than on a computer that's owned and operated by the business. This scenario, known as "shared hosting," provides reliability, security and performance for a relatively low price.

But having roommates may not be right for every business. Some sites need more room to roam, faster road access, high security walls or the freedom to do some major renovations. In that case, a dedicated server or a "virtual private server" - which is a term used to describe partitioning a single server, or computer, to work more like a separate physical computer - may be a better fit.


Chongwain
VPB Servers

 

[malikshahid3232]

From 2005 I have changed more than 5 hosting companies. They are all most popular companies on internet. Where I have share and dedicated host account.
But I have not satisfied and lastly I have taken a cloud server with license cPanel. Which have installed and configured myself - now it's much better!

 

[SenseiSteve]

When it comes to launching or re-launching a website, there's a big difference between renting and buying.

Most business websites are renters - meaning that they live inside of a Web hosting company rather than on a computer that's owned and operated by the business. This scenario, known as "shared hosting," provides reliability, security and performance for a relatively low price.

But having roommates may not be right for every business. Some sites need more room to roam, faster road access, high security walls or the freedom to do some major renovations. In that case, a dedicated server or a "virtual private server" - which is a term used to describe partitioning a single server, or computer, to work more like a separate physical computer - may be a better fit.

Chongwain
VPB Servers

You know, I get what you're saying, but you're not really 'buying' a virtual dedicated server, rather you're renting that space as well. For complex websites, it's easy to outgrow a sharing hosting account, which makes the move to a VPS or dedicated server more feasible.

 

[radwebhosting]

A genuine cloud should be able to provide 100% uptime, because a genuine cloud will have many failovers in place. This way if a server in the cloud fails, your data will still be available as it was backed up on many other servers.

 

[ron13315]

ron13315

Does it mean cloud hosting is the best?

 

[radwebhosting]

radwebhosting

Cloud Hosting, theoretically and if constructed properly, should provide the best uptime.

 

[ElixantTechnology]

ElixantTechnology

Theoretically yes, realisticly no.

The reality of it all is that most Cloud Hosting environments still rely on virtualization platforms that require routine reboots and updates to ensure stability and safe operation, resulting in downtime and possible issues along the line especially if the providers overloads machines as most virtual server providers do to make the solution profitable and sustainable.

We have run numerous tests for our customers, and we have found the absolute best way to ensure your company is availible for the longest periods of time would be bare metal solutions such as Dedicated Servers, with no virtualization platform in the middle to create an additional breaking point.

 

[sclaeys]

sclaeys

I would have to agree with you on this. Generally speaking, dedicated servers, when using good hardware (and on a reliable network), will provide the best continuous uptime in 2016. Some clouds do perform very well. It all depends on the network and architecture.

 

[Localnode]

Localnode

Unfortunately there's a lot of providers saying they're "cloud" when they aren't really. DigitalOcean and Vultr being 2 prime examples.

 

[radwebhosting]

radwebhosting

Unfortunately, the fact that "cloud" has become such a buzzword has led many providers to integrate it into their terminology which leads to confusion in the marketplace.

 

[jordyjl]

Companies that have alot of users and still can keep they head up, but nothing is 100% treu if they still stay years long.

 

[RDO Servers]

Does it mean cloud hosting is the best?

True Cloud hosting is good for some users, however there is no solution that is best for everyone.

Unfortunately there's a lot of providers saying they're "cloud" when they aren't really. DigitalOcean and Vultr being 2 prime examples.

Sadly, this is very true. When looking for cloud hosting, be sure to ask a lot of questions. If they just say its "cloud", and give no other info, you should probably stay away!

Companies that have alot of users and still can keep they head up, but nothing is 100% treu if they still stay years long.

It is true that 100% uptime for years, is pretty.much impossible to deliver. Even Amazon cloud, Facebook, etc cannot keep 100% uptime. However their are hosts that can come pretty close and will guarantee 99.999% - 100% uptime. Just be sure to ask what kind of credits you get if they do not deliver the guaranteed uptime.

 

[ElixantTechnology]

The term "Cloud" can be used quite widely, some even use it as a definition for their storage arrays being redundant.... More or less, the term is over used throughout the industry as a simple marketing scheme, which I have noticed is starting to lose some momentum. 100% uptime is impossible as there are situations that may arise outside of the providers hands, such as a cut fiber line or routing issues with ISPs. Be sure to choose a provider with a SLA in place that ensures you gain credits if there are any issues.

 

[radwebhosting]

radwebhosting

Ideally, a true cloud is redundant not only within the data center across many servers, but actually across many data centers in different geographical locations to avoid this issue. But with that level of redundancy, comes a much higher price which consumers are unlikely to want to pay because HostXYZ is offering "cloud hosting" for $3.99/month...

 

[ElixantTechnology]

ElixantTechnology

Most definitely. Though to construct a "Cloud" of such size would require the construction of not only multiple facilities but a private fiber optic backbone linking these datacenters together with little to no cross traffic to bottleneck the pipes as the transfer of data between facilities would need to be top-tier at any given time. This would increase costs ten fold to nearly $50-100 for a 512MB virtual machine, considering the replicated hardware requirements. This isn't even considering bandwidth costs.

Of corse, this makes such a feat not feasable... To date, I can not comfortably refer to a "Cloud" that correctly utilizes such infrastructure.