Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TheoCryst · Apr 3, 2008, 01:15 AM

I'm finally comfortable enough in my software development abilities that I'm not ashamed to release my work to the masses. Up to this point, So far I've published my work on Sourceforge, but I think it's time for me to get my own domain. This is partly because I want all my software available from the same location, and partly because I'm contemplating charging for a license for my next program (which doesn't really fly at Sourceforge).

So I come to you, oh all-knowing 'NNers. Having never paid for professional web hosting, where do I start looking? Are there any hosts you recommend/dislike?

- - e r i k - - · Apr 3, 2008, 01:19 AM

Why hasn't THIS thread been made a sticky? *sigh*

turtle777 · Apr 3, 2008, 01:38 AM

Yeah, a quick search in the Lounge would give you plenty ideas.

-t

TheoCryst · Apr 3, 2008, 01:48 AM

You're right; my apologies. I'm running on virtually no sleep right now, which is never the best time to post here. Thanks though; I'll search through the Lounge some time tomorrow.

MacosNerd · Apr 3, 2008, 07:21 AM

I'm using MediaLayer and I've found their servers to be fast and stable. The cost is in the neighborhood of similar companies.

I was with ICDSoft, a great hosting company but if you decide to host more then one site, it could get $$$ which is why I did not renew.

I was going to go with MediaTemple A number of people I know had praised the service but after reading more reviews on them they had some uptime and latency issues that I did not want to take a chance on.

Peter · Apr 3, 2008, 08:15 AM

segpub.com.au
amazing hosting with great technical support

olePigeon · Apr 3, 2008, 11:46 AM

GKG.net for registering your domain. As for hosting, I'd recommend Hurricane Electric. That's what I use, and it's really good.

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 12:27 PM

I'm now convinced that Dreamhost sucks.

Not only is it widely documented that they oversell their stuff like crazy, their servers are slow, etc. but they are also pretty neglectful. I inherited this client of mine that was using Dreamhost to send a newsletter to a mailing list of 14,000 users or so via a silly CGI script. How the admins of this server would have permitted a monthly mailing of that size to go under the radar is beyond me. Not only do mailings of this size peg the CPU when they are pushed out as fast as the machine can handle without any rate limits, but the bounces fill up queues, the inevitable treatment of this mail as being spam gets the web server put on blacklists affecting legitimate mail other users on that server may send, etc. This is absolutely the wrong way to send mail to 14,000 users for all sorts of reasons.

In short, if you want to spam a bunch of users, get a Dreamhost account. I think it is fair to think of Dreamhost as the Walmart of web hosting - great for sites that aren't very important if your primary criteria is cheap prices, but definitely not suitable for money making sites.

turtle777 · Apr 3, 2008, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

In short, if you want to spam a bunch of users, get a Dreamhost account. I think it is fair to think of Dreamhost as the Walmart of web hosting - great for sites that aren't very important if your primary criteria is cheap prices, but definitely not suitable for money making sites.

Well, duh, for money making websites, Dreamhost has generally NOT been recommend around here.

For personal use, it's the darn best bang for the buck you can get.

-t

MacosNerd · Apr 3, 2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

In short, if you want to spam a bunch of users, get a Dreamhost account.

I've heard this before and some ISPs have in the past blocked any emails from a dreamhost server because it was considered spam.

turtle777 · Apr 3, 2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I've heard this before and some ISPs have in the past blocked any emails from a dreamhost server because it was considered spam.

There is a big difference between BEING ABLE to abuse Dreamhost for spamming, and Dreamhost allowing it to happen.

AFAIK, Dreamhost will kick real spammers real fast. I don't think any major spamming operation is using Dreamhost, at least not for a long time.

-t

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 01:05 PM

I guess Dreamhost has its uses, but when the difference in cost between DH and a host that you could host a money making site on is no more than a few dollars a month or so, I just don't see the attraction.

Dreamhost's crazy high storage would be useless to me since the data would not be very reliable nor consistent as far as performance and bandwidth go (the load averages on the server I was on were fairly high, I'm sure there are several spikes that come and go that may interfere with automated backups from time to time). I've been looking at Amazon S3 for offsite backups, and may go with that within the near future...

I don't think that most people need 2309482309 email accounts, and I definitely wouldn't put business email on a Dreamhost server. When you remove all of the stuff that makes Dreamhost stand out among other hosts based on what is on paper, what is left really? I'd rather spend a couple of extra bucks a month and get something that will be far more reliable and secure for me... Maybe that's just me.

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

There is a big difference between BEING ABLE to abuse Dreamhost for spamming, and Dreamhost allowing it to happen.

AFAIK, Dreamhost will kick real spammers real fast. I don't think any major spamming operation is using Dreamhost, at least not for a long time.

-t

What is stopping a spammer from spamming via a CGI script, just like my client was doing? Even though monthly emails to 14,000 users went under the radar (and they were sending these newsletters for at least a year, AFAIK), you could modify the script to add a sleep delay to keep the spikes on the servers down a little so that the admins would have even less reason to notice you, and you could probably get away with spamming all day.

If DH did monitor what mail came from their servers, I would think that 14,000 emails from a single address in a day would set off some flags, no?

turtle777 · Apr 3, 2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

If DH did monitor what mail came from their servers, I would think that 14,000 emails from a single address in a day would set off some flags, no?

Why ?

As you described, there is a legitimate reason to send that many mails.

How do you know DH did NOT look into it, and find it was a legitimate newsletter, and decided to let it happen ? You don't know that, you are just ass-uming

-t

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I've heard this before and some ISPs have in the past blocked any emails from a dreamhost server because it was considered spam.

Which sucks for people on that server that may want to send legit mail to people from their web server, for whatever reason...

There are ways to prevent a web server from being a spam cannon, but it's nearly impossible to stay ahead of the game when you are stretched so thin by overselling.

turtle777 · Apr 3, 2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Which sucks for people on that server that may want to send legit mail to people from their web server, for whatever reason...

Thanks for the heads-up, Cpt. Obvious

-t

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Why ?

As you described, there is a legitimate reason to send that many mails.

How do you know DH did NOT look into it, and find it was a legitimate newsletter, and decided to let it happen ? You don't know that, you are just ass-uming

-t

Legitimate or not, without rate limiting a mailing of that size *will* affect other users. A brainless CGI will basically push mail to the MTA as fast as it can, and if the MTA refuses connections, unless your CGI is connecting to a local MTA that queues mail destined for the central relays, this mail will not be queued and will simply vanish.

It's analogous to basically tossing a bazillion balls at somebody and saying "catch these, damn it!" giving them no real opportunity to do so, opening up one connection per message (i.e. "send this message to this single recipient" looped x number of times).

AFAIK, DH allows any old CGI to run (this one in question was indeed brainless and user installed).

This is why software like Mailman exists that handles these sort of mailings properly.

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Thanks for the heads-up, Cpt. Obvious

Care to respond to my second paragraph in that post? If you are that emotionally invested to DH, I apologize if I'm offending you. I know that to many Mac users there is a certain element of emotion invested into our technological decisions and choices (which is cool, just saying).

MacosNerd · Apr 3, 2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

There is a big difference between BEING ABLE to abuse Dreamhost for spamming, and Dreamhost allowing it to happen.

I'm just saying that I had read that some ISPs were blocking emails that emanated from DH servers in the past.

It seems pretty clear that DH is allowing it by not having the proper controls on their servers. You cannot say it was an oversight when they suddenly see a spike in traffic and have had issues with other ISPs blocking them.

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I'm just saying that I had read that some ISPs were blocking emails that emanated from DH servers in the past.

It seems pretty clear that DH is allowing it by not having the proper controls on their servers. You cannot say it was an oversight when they suddenly see a spike in traffic and have had issues with other ISPs blocking them.

Not only traffic, but load....

Try running this little PHP script on a web server and monitor your load average while it is being run:

<?php
for ($x=0;$x <= 14000;$x++) {
mail ('[email protected]','test','test message');
}
?>

This is basically what most web apps and scripts do.

analogue SPRINKLES · Apr 3, 2008, 01:41 PM

WireNine - cPanel Web Hosting, Reseller Hosting, and Dedicated Servers

mduell · Apr 3, 2008, 09:40 PM

Register at namecheap, host at dreamhost for big static files.

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 09:57 PM

what do you mean by "big static files"?

turtle777 · Apr 3, 2008, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

what do you mean by "big static files"?

Well duh, movies and music comes to mind.

-t

besson3c · Apr 3, 2008, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Well duh, movies and music comes to mind.

-t

If you're approaching the bandwidth limits offered by most hosts for a single site, you are doing really well. I suppose DH would be a good choice if all you needed was bandwidth. Overall, like I said, I still think of it as the Walmart of web hosting.

euchomai · Apr 4, 2008, 01:57 AM

I still like MediaTemple a lot. The dashboard is clean and easy. I've not had problems but know a friend of mine has dealt with some stuff the last couple of months. By the last couple of months he's had a few minutes of downtime or latency.

mduell · Apr 4, 2008, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

what do you mean by "big static files"?

Files where you're serving a file from disk (software, music, movies, whatever) instead of a dynamically generated page (which can run into issues with CPU usage at Dreamhost).

- - e r i k - - · Apr 4, 2008, 11:01 AM

For hosting I'd say this is the ranking:

Personal level to light hosting: Dreamhost
Medium sized commercial hosting: MediaTemple
Large volume / high end commercial hosting: Rackspace

Buck_W · Apr 4, 2008, 04:29 PM

I know there are numerous sites that "compare" hosting providers (like consumer reports for servers), but do you guys have favorite site that you would recommend?

Mithras · Apr 4, 2008, 05:40 PM

I'm also much happier at MediaTemple than I had been at Dreamhost. Better availability, better upload and download speeds, and more flexible system. It's a little more expensive ($20/mo instead of ~$9), but works better for my needs.

Also, I was pissed off at Dreamhost for this whole "clarification" that specified that you can't use your Dreamhost storage for backup.

Mastrap · Apr 4, 2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

For hosting I'd say this is the ranking:

Personal level to light hosting: Dreamhost
Medium sized commercial hosting: MediaTemple
Large volume / high end commercial hosting: Rackspace

100% agree. We use dreamhost for a whole number of low load sites, with little in the way of problem and even lower cost.

turtle777 · Apr 4, 2008, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

Also, I was pissed off at Dreamhost for this whole "clarification" that specified that you can't use your Dreamhost storage for backup.

What's there to get pissed about ?

I was never notified about this policy change, and I'm not going to stick to it.
Once they tell me I can't do it anymore, I'm gone.

-t

besson3c · Apr 5, 2008, 12:14 AM

How on Earth is Dreamhost going to enforce the policy that files you store on your account are related to hosting a website? About the whole way I can see them doing this is analyzing your data... Does this prospect go over well with you DH fans?

turtle777 · Apr 5, 2008, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How on Earth is Dreamhost going to enforce the policy that files you store on your account are related to hosting a website? About the whole way I can see them doing this is analyzing your data... Does this prospect go over well with you DH fans?

That's pretty easy.

What kind of ripped movies and music is someone able to RIGHTFULLY share on his website ? None !

So technically, they could argue and say that these kind of files should never be there.

-t

besson3c · Apr 5, 2008, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

That's pretty easy.

What kind of ripped movies and music is someone able to RIGHTFULLY share on his website ? None !

So technically, they could argue and say that these kind of files should never be there.

-t

So if I backup my home directory they are going to be scavenging through my home directory looking for movies and music? Sounds like fun!

turtle777 · Apr 5, 2008, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

So if I backup my home directory they are going to be scavenging through my home directory looking for movies and music? Sounds like fun!

In theory, yes.

I have not been contacted by DH about this, and they never called me out for backing up my personal sh!t.

My personal opinion is that this is more a legal issue, DH covering their asses in case someone uses DH for backup, and something gets lost.
They could be held liable, and would need to adhere to much higher security standards if they advertised it as a backup solution.

I think it's all about limiting potential litigation.

-t

besson3c · Apr 5, 2008, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

In theory, yes.

I have not been contacted by DH about this, and they never called me out for backing up my personal sh!t.

My personal opinion is that this is more a legal issue, DH covering their asses in case someone uses DH for backup, and something gets lost.
They could be held liable, and would need to adhere to much higher security standards if they advertised it as a backup solution.

I think it's all about limiting potential litigation.

-t

I don't buy that. There is no web host that will guarantee the reliability of your data, because they can't. It's up to you to have a backup, or to rely upon the backup provided by the host.

I agree that it would be foolish to advertise a backup service. For starters, most people's upload bandwidth from their home ISP is throttled a great deal. However, there is a difference between not advertising a backup service versus actually prohibiting backups, and implicitly monitoring your data to enforce this policy. Maybe they won't bother monitoring and enforcing, but it's still a weak policy.

turtle777 · Apr 5, 2008, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Maybe they won't bother monitoring and enforcing, but it's still a weak policy.

What's weak about it ?

It's actually a pretty straight forward cover-your-ass policy.
Yes, there are areas that might not be quite clear, but as long as they are not anal about it (enforcing it), it doesn't matter.

I have not heard about them enforcing it.

-t

KeriVit · May 23, 2008, 02:23 PM

OK, I've read this and searched around a bit, but it hasn't helped me decide who to use. I'm wondering, what makes one company better over another? I mean, why don't I just use GoDaddy or something popular like that? What am I looking for in a web host. Sorry, I'm new at this whole web thing.

I just need to have a site to display my design portfolio.

besson3c · May 23, 2008, 02:26 PM

KeriVit: will your site consist of static HTML pages? If so, you can use any host out there. Or, will it run WordPress or some other content management system? Will you be out financially if your site is ever down? Does it require a lot of bandwidth and/or fast access?

KeriVit · May 23, 2008, 02:39 PM

KeriVit: will your site consist of static HTML pages?
I don't even know what static HTML Pages are. I know how to set up my site in Dreamweaver. It's basically a homepage with 4 subpages. About - Contact- Portfolio- Resume. The Resume Page will have a resume for reading and for downloading. The portfolio page will have thumbnails and Large views of my work.

There will be no Flash. I'm not that ambitious.

If so, you can use any host out there. Or, will it run WordPress or some other content management system?
Um...

Will you be out financially if your site is ever down?
No. May not get a job that day though. A creative director has little time to keep trying my site.

Does it require a lot of bandwidth and/or fast access? No, not really. I'll keep the images relatively small.

MacosNerd · May 23, 2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by KeriVit

OK, I've read this and searched around a bit, but it hasn't helped me decide who to use. I'm wondering, what makes one company better over another? I mean, why don't I just use GoDaddy or something popular like that? What am I looking for in a web host. Sorry, I'm new at this whole web thing.

I just need to have a site to display my design portfolio.

Storage, speed, uptime and customer service are usually the defining elements that I use to figure out which web host to go to. A number of web hosts, such as dreamhost over sell there storage. That is they give away so much storage that they do not have because they figure not everyone will use the maximum given. Also the high bandwidth is provided until you start using it, then they ratchet your speed down. I use medialayer

besson3c · May 23, 2008, 02:44 PM

KeriVit: unless you have any desire to make your website more than what it is now at some point, your hosting choices are wide open. If it were me, I would go with a host that provides SSH access so that you can connect to your home directory via SFTP rather than insecure FTP, and it would be a Unix/Linux based host, but other than these two considerations it is going to come down to the perceived quality of their administrative systems, billing processes, support, etc.

besson3c · May 23, 2008, 02:48 PM

Don't be fooled by uptime claims put out by these hosting companies either, they are virtually meaningless and easily manipulated. Your best gauge of actual uptime is the general vibe you get in doing a Google search of what people are saying about the host in forums and blogs, and the prices of the hosting providers. Like MacOSNerd says, the companies that sell stuff super cheap have to oversell their services to make the economics work for them, so generally speaking if you go for a super cheap host such as Dreamhost, you will have more outages.

This is a very crude and imperfect rule of thumb full of exceptions, but...

KeriVit · May 23, 2008, 02:59 PM

OK, that's helpful. Just a simple site.

So what is all this other stuff they list and what does it mean to me? OK, not ALL of it, but the gist of it.

ipower

besson3c · May 23, 2008, 03:16 PM

Which items in the list are you unclear on?

KeriVit · May 23, 2008, 03:28 PM

Never mInd, they all have explanations if I click on the icon next to it. Thanks.

mduell · May 23, 2008, 08:54 PM

drop.io for one-click web hosting.

andi*pandi · Jan 30, 2009, 12:59 PM

Is goDaddy evil?

besson3c · Jan 30, 2009, 01:25 PM

Their SMTP server is a PITA, I'll tell you that.