[Buck_W]

Can someone please clear this up for me? I've heard good things about MacDock webhosting, but when you compare the the price for disk storage between them and a business like DreamHost, the difference is staggering. For instance:

MacDock - 19.95 gets you 100 MB storage / 10 GB Bandwidth
DreamHost - the same 19.95 gets you 60 GB storage / 1.6 TB of Bandwidth

Why is there such a huge discrepancy for the same price? How can companies like DreamHost afford to offer deals like that? What advantages are there in going with a Mac only hosting outfit like MacDock (or someone else)?

Thanks

[maccrazy]

Why is there such a huge discrepancy for the same price? How can companies like DreamHost afford to offer deals like that? What advantages are there in going with a Mac only hosting outfit like MacDock (or someone else)?

There are two big considerations here. First is that you pay a premium for Mac OS X Server based hosting. Second is that Dreamhost is overselling at very high levels. This means they are relying on most people only using a fraction of that space and bandwidth. Hosts that oversell usually have other ways of limiting users. For example, CPU usage restrictions are common, as are daily bandwidth limits. As with everything, you get what you pay for (though you do have to be careful of this statement because ISPs charge exorbitant rates for hosting and offer far less than most web hosts). To help you understand, take a look at how much servers cost here. There are cheaper options and if you own your own data center it may be cheaper as well, but if you look at those prices I'm sure you can see why it isn't profitable to have such low prices unless you are working on the principle that most people will only use a fraction of their accounts space and bandwidth. The best thing to do is work out how much space and bandwidth you need and find a host that offers it for a reasonable price.

What you should look for is something in between the two you mentioned above. Myacen and TJR Networks are both good hosts.

[Simon Mundy]

Is there any specific reason you'd want to utilise any Mac OS X-specific technologies? If not, you're a whole lot better off using a unix/linux-based host for speed alone.

However, hosts aren't all equal and as maccrazy pointed out, a lot of hosts make their money from overselling/overstretching their capabilities. Fine if you are only after a hobby-ist or smaller type website, but dangerous if you're after a site that can fulfil moderate traffic for 99.9% of the time.

Check the fineprint and the guarantees for each potential host and work back from there

[Buck_W]

Originally Posted by Simon Mundy

Is there any specific reason you'd want to utilise any Mac OS X-specific technologies? If not, you're a whole lot better off using a unix/linux-based host for speed alone.

Thanks for the replies. I am leaning toward Mac-specific technologies simply because of their outstanding quality. You mentioned the speed associated with the unix/linux-based hosts. Could you elaborate?

[Simon Mundy]

Originally Posted by Buck_W

Thanks for the replies. I am leaning toward Mac-specific technologies simply because of their outstanding quality. You mentioned the speed associated with the unix/linux-based hosts. Could you elaborate?

*Disclaimer: I haven't tried Mac OS X Tiger on an XServe!

As a rule of thumb, Linux on a x386 has historically tended to outperform Mac OS X for day-to-day server duties like Apache web server, PHP, MySQL, Mail, etc. Not by huge orders of magnitude, but enough to make a noticeable difference. On top of that, you can also make your own server with custom components at a significantly reduced cost to that of an XServe, so a lot of hosts have servers that can match or beat Mac hardware and still allow them to make budget. Parts are also generally cheaper.

There are other factors, like Linux having the ability to perform software updates without requiring a reboot, having broader technical support across the web (more open source contributors = better (& quicker?) help when you need it) and better response times to security issues.

Again, this is all my own subjective experience with Mac and Linux - I have two servers that I bought and have colocated, both running Fedora 4 and they are blazing compared to a Mac OS X Server. Even a crappy Pentium 3 running FC4 here in my office is faster than a dual G4 for serving web pages and calling MySQL. YMMV but I really do suggest going for a linux-based host unless you wanted Mac-specific technologies like Applescript, Spotlight or even AppleShare for your webserving needs.

[Buck_W]

Thanks Simon, that was a very informative explanation. You mentioned that you have purchased several servers of your own. What if I decided to go that route (purchase my own server) instead of renting space on someone else's set up? Could you (or anyone else) point me in the right direction as to where I could gain some information on how to set up and serve my own website?

Thanks!

[maccrazy]

Originally Posted by Buck_W

What if I decided to go that route (purchase my own server) instead of renting space on someone else's set up?

How big is your site? If you are using less than 5GB of space and 100GB of bandwidth you should be well within the capacity of shared hosting. Renting a dedicated server for a small site is a complete waste of money.

Originally Posted by Simon Mundy

As a rule of thumb, Linux on a x386 has historically tended to outperform Mac OS X for day-to-day server duties like Apache web server, PHP, MySQL, Mail, etc. Not by huge orders of magnitude, but enough to make a noticeable difference.

Simon is correct, and I agree with his suggestion that unless you require Mac OS X specific technologies, you would probably be better with Linux based hosting. However, there are lots of hosts out there that oversell at high levels and overload their servers. At that point, how efficient each platform goes out the window. I guess what I am trying to say is avoid the super cheap hosts if your budget allows.