This hosting provider has 2 packages at the same price, 1 is called webhosting and the other is called wordpress, they cost both $4.
The only difference between those two is that the webhosting package provides 1000gb of network traffic and wordpress only 100. The webhosting does have mysql & PHP.
Why would you buy the the wordpress package if the webhosting package provides more network traffic?
With shared hosting packages (WordPress or Conventional web hosting), bandwidth isn't important thing to be considered. Most of the shared packages never going to utilize more than 20 GB transfer. Knowing this fact, web hosts add more 0s to their offer to make it look more exciting. The fact is, you'll never going to use that much amount of bandwidth and you aren't getting any extra value.
I believe WordPress packages must have some additional features like, SSD storage, built in CDN, Caching Mechanisms, more RAM, CPU, Inodes, entry processes, etc. compared to ordinary web hosting. Better you ask your web hosting provider.
If you are looking to compare different web hosting packages head over to Hosting Recipe which will help you.
Related
I've been looking for a free web host where I don't have to use a template. I have my own website fully coded and just want to port it into their server. I don't know if I'm missing something, but every free web host I've come across requires me to choose a template. Please help.
I think this information can be useful for you. If you plan to get your website, here is one good free web hosting provider to choose - 000webhost.com
They provide hosting absolutely free, there is no catch. You get 1500 MB of disk space and 100 GB bandwidth. They also have cPanel control panel which is amazing and easy to use website builder. Moreover, there is no any kind of advertising on your pages.
You can register here: http://www.000webhost.com/864177.html
When it comes to web hosting, what you pay for is always what you get. The more expensive companies are expensive for a reason - they can afford all of the costs to maintain and secure your site. Free hosts are not going to treat your site the same way at all.
Venture at your own risk, but no matter what company you look at, always research customer reviews!
I have five websites that I designed and now manage on a month-to-month basis. Currently, each website is hosted individually via HostGator. I am realizing this is the improper (and costly) way to manage multiple websites and am curious into how I could transfer the websites to a single server, and some hosts you guys find reliable.
Below is a snap of one of the sites usages, these are all static sites that are quite small. How much space would I need on my new, single server to accommodate 20 of these websites?
Current site usage:
http://imgur.com/18BvsC2
Your image shows you are using 6.7 megabytes of data for one website. If that is similar space usage for all 20 of your anticipated domains, you need virtually very little hosting space as far as storage goes these days. Most entry level virtual hosting plans come with more than enough to meet your 20 domain expectations of like usage.
You want virtual hosting regardless. Most web hosting providers have plans that allow you to host many domains, including hostgator. Here is a link to compare their plans. http://www.hostgator.com/shared-compare
I've used DreamHost and HostMonster in the past, with nothing bad to say about them.
Perhaps you should brush up more on the pros, cons and hows of web hosting. Here is a link I just googled that might get you started. http://www.webhostingsecretrevealed.net/web-hosting-beginner-guide/
I am experiencing very poor performance. I have am OrchardCms Template pulled down from Azure, which includes a very little in extra modules and a small ecommerce module I have written.
I have read the performance discussions and am aware of the discussions such as
Scaling Orchard with Azure Web Sites
Orchard CMS Speed Issues
I have then looked at the SampleHost.config in the settings with no concrete implementation.
Is it safe to say that if you are wanting any performance you need to go to WebRoles rather than Azure Websites or am I missing something.
Which Web Sites tier are you using? If on free tier, then you're sharing the virtual machine instances with other tenants and this can impact performance, especially if you have "noisy neighbors." Once you move to dedicated instances, then performance would be roughly equivalent to what you'd see with Web Roles (Cloud Services). This goes for both compute and bandwidth (and bandwidth is shared between external traffic and traffic between your compute and Storage.
Does anyone know if there is an overview of the performance of different cache handlers for smarty?
I compared smarty file cache with a memcache handler, but it seemed memcache has a negative impact on performance.
I figured there would be a faster way to cache than through the filesystem... am I wrong?
I don't have a systematic answer for you, but in my experience, the file cache is the fastest. I should clarify that I haven't done any serious performance tests, but in all the time I've used Smarty, I have found the file cache to work best.
One this that definitely improves performance is to disable checking if the template files have changed. This avoids having to stat the tpl files.
File caching is ok when you have a single server instance or using shared drive (NFS) in a server cluster, but when you have a web server cluster (two or more web servers serving the same content), the problem with file based caching is not sync across the web servers. To perform a simple rsync on the caching directories is error prone. May work flawlessly for awhile but not a stable solution. The best solution for a cluster is to use distributed caching, that is memcache, which is a separate server running a memcached instance and each web server has PHP Memcache installed. Each server will then check for the existent of a cached page/item and if exists pulls from memcache otherwise will generate from the database and then save into memcached. When you are dealing with clusters, you cannot skimp on a good caching mechanism. If you are dealing with clusters, then your site already has more traffic (or will be) for a single server to handle.
There is beginners level cluster environment which can be implemented for a relative low cost. You can set up two colocated servers (nginx load balancer and a memcached server), then using free shared web hosting, you create an account of the same domain on those free hosting accounts and install your content. You configure your nginx load balancer to point to the IP addresses of the free web hosts. The free web hosts must have php5 memcache installed or the solution will not work.
Then you set you DNS for the domain with the registrar to point the NGINX IP (which would be a static ip if you are colocating). Now when someone access your domain, nginx redirects to one of your web server clusters located on the free hosting.
You may also want to consider a CDN to off load traffic when serving the static content.
I have two specs from two different hosts I am using:
(a) Dedicated server with Full duplex 100Mbits internet connection ($140 per month)
(b) Shared Host on a server that has 100Mbits internet connection ($7 per month)
I have tested my application which downloads from other servers and lets users download from my site in turn. I have tested this again and again and it takes the same time to download files! But the dedicated is much faster in the final download to the clients computer.
Firstly, are there any Linux commands or tools I can use to test bandwidth properly for each server?
Secondly, why the hell do they have the same download speed from other servers??
Please shed some light on this as I feel I've been wasting money for no reason!!
Thanks all
First, you can use iperf to test your network speeds. Second, you're not paying for the speed, you're paying for the power and flexibility of having essentially your own server configured however you want. With a shared host, your site is most likely on a machine with a hundred other sites, each competing for resources.
Also, the bottleneck is probably not on your end or on your host's end, but rather somewhere in between the content you're fetching and your servers.
if i read correctly, your shared server is just as fast as the dedicated when fetching a file, but much slower when serving it.
I'd say that the box your shared server is in has the "out" bandwidth mostly used by the other client's slices, while the "in" bandwidth is mostly unused, so you get almost full performance.
sounds right, since serving files is a lot more common task than fetching them.
The big difference between shared hosting and dedicated hosting is that with dedicated hosting, you're the only account using that box. With shared hosting, there could be (and most likely are) thousands of other web sites hosted on it.
If one of those sites goes wonky and takes the whole box with it, your site goes too. On a dedicated box, the only site that's going to go wonky is yours.
With dedicated, you probably also have full admin rights to the box, which you probably don't have with the shared host.
Well, one possiblity is that the shared site is on a host that has very little load from the other shared sites. If all the shared sites are just sitting there getting very little hits, then your site basically is getting full use of the box, so its no different from a dedicated box.
But if those other sites start getting traffic, your site will be impacted.
Not sure if the shared site is full duplex or not, but that doesn't always make a difference (not an expert there).
Perhaps the servers they are downloading from are the bottleneck? You could have a dedicated gigabit pipe but it won't help if you can only get 10mbps from the other servers.
Remember the benefit of a dedicated host is that your performance will not be affected by other processes on the machine. The extra money guarantees you that 100mbit, not that you'll see better performance than a hosted machine at any given time.