Well maybe not a whole show....
I know you've touched on selection of web host's before.
However, I ended up finding the advice inadequate.
I'm currently having problems with our web host and have decided we need to switch to something giving us better and more consistent performance before going public with a couple of projects.
My attempt to do some quick research into selecting a new host led to a lot of confusion. It seemed to me that the most promoted and most widely used web hosts are now nearly all being both wildly oversold and under priced in a sort of race to the bottom. This situation seemed to practically guarantee we were going to eventually be subject to the very problems I was trying to avoid.
I've since educated myself quite a bit about the market, but "good" information on the web wasn't easy to find amongst all the noise. One step I've taken is to start using web monitoring tools to evaluate page load times and uptime, but realize I still have a lot of shopping research to do.
I've now collected a bunch of observations and resources. It's more than I can condense into a reasonable post on G&G. It really deserves a full blog posting or two. Maybe I'll do that eventually....
Anyway, I think it's a important topic, and the selection can be a much trickier problem when your trying to run a CMS or some other database + host scripted application. Consistently delivering the server resources to make this stuff work efficiently is given little attention by many hosts and it receives almost no acknowledgment in web host sales materials. It's looking like we'll have to go with a host promising less and quite possibly charging a bit more to get reliable performance quality.
Mark
This is tough...
Hey Mark...
The reason we'd have a tough time doing a show like this is because of some things you allude to here:
All shared hosts are now totally oversold...and their mysql servers are in even worse shape, because so many people are using database driven sites. The next level up is a VPS (virtual private server) but these are usually overkill or out of the price range of the average church. And we won't even mention private servers.
So, our struggle is: How can we recommend anything that is less than a VPS? I don't think we can...so we feel that it may be information that would have people hearing dollar signs.
Personally, I don't think churches should spend big bucks on webhosting (easier for me to say when it's not MY church). I think it's ministry money that would better affect the world in another way. So my recommendation (that every geek would chastise me for) would be for a church to be on a shared host, pay hardly anything, and just deal with the downtime that comes once in a while. Afterall, I don't think the slow service or the downtime would make it worth a church paying $50+ a month for a VPS...of course, there would be exceptions, but they'd be fewer than people make them out to be.
So, it sucks because if we did a show on this, I would have to say 2 things that no one would agree with or like...they'd be either: "Pay $50 a month or more for VPS" or "Your church site isn't important enough to spend big ministry money on anything more than a shared host...just accept the downtimes and move on".
I guess I, personally, feel that there are currently no good hosting options for churches when weighing performance vs. cost.
-Rob Feature
Geeks and God Co-Host
www.bobchristenson.com
I Hear Ya
Thanks Rob,
Maybe not a good show, I hear ya, but....
Me... I've gotta do something. I've been tracking my host (Dreamhost) at five minute intervals with monitor service for the last couple days. Page loads for a WordPress/Podpress site and a demo Drupal site are poking into the 15-30 second range. The Drupal site goes there many, many times a day and load times vary wildly. The legacy static HTML homepage has 3 massive JPEGs on it, yet it is always loaded in under 1.8 seconds. I've wrangled with the Dreamhost crew before over service issues, and I don't want to go through the run-a-round again.. with them or anyone else offering terra-capacity for micro-credit.
I have to get those page load differentials way down or its going to be bye-bye for the dynamic web, the database apps, the works. If I ignore it now, the first or second time a minister or board member tries to use the site and gets that type of delay, we'll have to deal with it quick.
As I mentioned, I've got some leads on a sorta solution.
I can't see going to a +$50/mo VPS solution either, but around ...$20/mo well maybe. I'm pretty sure the church runs through money at a faster rate than that on just paper adds and brochures already. (On the other hand... my church partner in tech seriously suggested a $200/mo T1 and a dedicated server. Like that's going to happen.)
Anyway, I think we can live with bandwidth and storage overselling and some lower and more rigid limits on those aspects of service. Heck I don't even care if I get email! We just need someone with more muscular servers and who'll slice the server resources a lot less thinly. If I'm actually successful at finding something along those lines, available at semi-modest rates, I'll come back and share some.
Mark
MediaTemple
Currently, MF and I both are hosting with MediaTemple.com. They may be a good inbetween solution for you. Here's the reason:
Their grid server (ie shared) packages are $20/month and the technology that runs them is much "smarter" than traditional shared hosts, designating power where it's needed. The performance on these alone, not including a database, is better than the average shared host.
But, a new feature they added may be the killer app for people "in between" like churches. They run traditional shared mysql servers, which come standard on gridserver accounts...However, they just added a great option. You can basically stay on the gridserver, but upgrade to the equivelant of a VPS database server ONLY (for another $20/month).
This may be a great solution for anyone running a CMS, since 99% of page load delays come from the database server. So, now you can basically get a 'shared hosting' package with them, and upgrade only the database server for better and more dedicated database performance. I haven't tried this personally, but I think it's where I would go next if I had a client who demanded higher performance out of a database.
-Rob Feature
Geeks and God Co-Host
www.bobchristenson.com
Some info on MediaTemple
Heres a little more info about MediaTemple if anyone is interested.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006...
TechCrunch on Media Temple
The Media Temple haters ... there are a big bunch of disgruntled folks ... point to that article and rant that its both technically inaccurate/misleading media hype and a biased promo from TechCrunch.
.... Apparently TechCrunch uses their VPS or managed server service. The grid server concept appears to be in a large part marketing buzz for something not hugely different from what a lot of other smaller fish in that pricing tier are also doing. The follow up to the grid service launch was at least six months of implementation troubles (not clear that all problems are gone yet). For many people who signed up or switched from their previous shared service, grid service has been a let down and hassle. This is mainly all anecdotal... pulled from Drupal groups and elsewhere.
I'm not saying stay away, just proceed with caution. I'm going to be considering some other alternatives between $12/mo-$25/mo before biting on this one. Changing hosts is a big hassle.
Mark
MediaTemple
I know this is a little behind but I thought I would chime in.
First, I am right there with what Rob had to say about hosting. That's one of the reasons the Drupal Caching and Preprocessing system is so great. It really provides improvement on those mid range and slower hosts.
On the Media Temple front I have been one of those people who have pointed out their issues. Just check my blog. But, the support has been great, they have been fast at reacting to problems, and they have blogged about what's going on.
When the grid initially launched a bunch of people with home grown apps that dragged down mysql servers switched to them. They had a policy that they don't drop people from too much mysql use so they kept these users where other hosts would drop them. To get around this they redesigned the way they mysql servers worked to account for this. Overall, they have fixed a lot of problems quickly and they do it well.
The grid is not a low end solution repackaged. It's also not a high end either. It really is in the middle. The amount of processing you get is much higher. For me it has been the best at it's price range. Though, there are a lot of solutions I have not tried.
Matt Farina
Geeks and God Co-Host
www.mattfarina.com
Dont mean to hijack this
Dont mean to hijack this thread, but after reading more on mediatemple, Im interested in what it has to offer. Got a question for either Rob or Matt on this one. I see media temple offers a spam filtering called mailprotect. How well does that work? One site I read stated it was an additional $5 per month. Is there any gotchas I should be concerned with?
I appreciate any info you have on this. Thanks guys
MailProtect
@techmate:
MailProtect comes included at no extra cost for the (gs) Grid-Service product. After the (gs) came out, it became a standard feature, as opposed to it being a paid add-on like on the (ss) Shared Server.
It is actually pretty good for server-side spam filtering. You get some control over how it works and can make custom rules for specific accounts. The kind of things you can do with it include setting a minimum spam score, Allow/Deny lists, and how the spam should be treated (rename the subject, move to a separate folder, or delete).
Hope this helps clear up any confusion. =)
--Arman Z. - (mt) Media Temple, Inc.
Signed up for MediaTemple
Thanks Arman for posting. I went ahead and sigined up for MediaTemple to try it out. It seems to have some nice features and hope it works out.
MediaTemple is Interesting
Thanks for the recommendation. It's good to get one where I have a little more knowledge of and respect for the source.
MediaTemple is still definitely on my list of Hosting Service candidates, but a little closer to bottom than top. I've collected a lot of feedback about them (about equal good and bad), but I "suspect" they'd work out OK for us.
I'm concerned about their offer of a terrabyte of bandwidth, the level of marketing spin surrounding the grid-service, and the number of problem and downtime reports they've racked up implementing/operating it. If I just look at the tally counts of anecdotal advocates and haters, the scenery looks a lot like Dreamhost. I suspect part of MT's problem is that at $20/mo, some people expect "a lot more". I'd actually be OK with "a little less" in some areas and "just enough" in others.
I'm also looking at references from a couple web sites that seem more informed and less mass-market commercial than the average host review/discussion sites: The Host Guru and Web Hosting Reviews.
Mark