Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I went to GoDaddy.com for hosting. They have menus like
1)website hosting
2)grid hosting
what is the difference between the two. I am new to this hosting and webapps stuff..
Grid hosting usually means that the web space you rent is not located on one (potentially shared) machine, but is more like a "virtual machine" (think VMware) which is hosted on a cluster of servers (a grid).
While resources on a single machine are limited and might run out, especially if it's a shared host and you have to share your resources (memory, bandwidth) with potentially hundreds or thousands of other users who are hosted on the same machine as you, grid hosting is more flexible, as your virtual website could leverage resources from more machines in the cluster if necessary. This of course also increases reliability of the website, as the failure of one grid node doesn't matter, another server takes over, while the failure of your dedicated or shared host takes your website offline.
I would assume that they refer to the single machine as "website hosting".
Update
GoDaddy has an FAQ about their grid hosting, which should answer all additional questions you might have.
A reply from Godaddy Support:
Please be advised while there is unlimited compute cycles for site server and not for database.
From wikipedia: Grid Computing | Cloud Computing. I haven't seen 'grid hosting' as a common phrase, but it could be taken to mean using one of the earlier two concepts to host a website in a scalable manner.
However, if godaddy is offering 'grid hosting' I suspect they're offering to grid computing to you in such a way that has nothing to do with hosting a website. They're offering to sell you large amounts of processor power with low communication requirements, as opposed to selling you web hosting which is typically high communication requirements with low processing requirements (relative to one another of course)
Grid computing is a collection of computing resources from multiple locations to reach in a common location. Grid is also called distributed system.it is similar to a VPS but generally has more storage then VPS Servers.
Grid Hosting is a form of distributed hosting is when a server cluster acts like a grid and is composed of multiple nodes.
Currently, various hosting service types are available..you can find details for them from here..
From above these, you can select your desired hosting provider and type.
Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm friends with an owner of a small creative business (with multiple departments) and until now they have been using a dedicated server (via a 3rd party) for a lot of internal projects and they've been known to iframe a few small dev projects (like photo galleries, one page sites etc...) off and on for some of their clients (some with hi traffic sites).
They're looking to switch from the dedicated server to a cloud environment. The owner is enamored with amazon's cloud services, but still wanted some alternative options they also want the new environment to mirror the current one as much as possible (linux/centOS, PHP 5.3, mysql databases) but with the ability to scale when desired.
So the misconceptions I need cleared up and questions I have are:
1) I always assumed amazon's cloud service was more suitable for high end high traffic complex web application (Netflix, pinterest, instagram etc...) rather than the typical server use listed above. Is this correct?
2) Is it possible to mirror their current setup on amazon?
3) If number 1 is not true, but they instead chose rackspace, could they run heavy web apps like Netflix, pinterest, instagram on a rackspace cloud server if they ever decided to do something that advanced (is rackspace scaleable in the same way ec2 is)?
1) Amazon AWS is also suitable for this environment, or even smaller ones (they offer instances as small as "Micro", which are far less capable than what you are describing all the way up to GPU compute clusters).
2) Yes. That is a very common setup for an AWS-based solution. In fact, I recently migrated something similar from Rackspace to AWS.
3) #1 is true. However, you can certainly mix what runs on Rackspace and in the AWS cloud. Keep in mind latency and security issues if the two component solutions need to communicate with each other. Rackspace also has a cloud offering, but it is not as mature as Amazons.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
My portal will be mainly accessed in India and it involves uploading/viewing of images which means good data transfer will be involved.
If I host my portal on servers located in India; surely it will be faster to access the pages. But I want to personally use Amazon web services. Do we have option in Amazon so that we can host our tomcat server and save images on some servers located in India ; or at max. in Singapore so that access is fairly faster.
Amazon Web Services offers several AWS datacenter Regions for most of their Products & Services within their steadily expanding global infrastructure, amongst those the Asia Pacific (Singapore) Region (usually referred to as ap-southeast-1).
Furthermore they do offer even more so called edge locations for Amazon CloudFront, which is their Content delivery network (CDN) alike web service for content delivery.
You can see an overview of the current regions and edge locations on their Global Infrastructure map.
There is an API oriented Regions and Endpoints listing as well, see e.g. those for the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) (please note that not every region does necessarily support every single available product, especially beta offerings are usually available in us-east-1 only initially).
Consequently you should be fine using ap-southeast-1 for your use case, though as usual you might want to give it a try before settling on this, which is fairly easy to do by means of the AWS Free Usage Tier offering.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
May I use CDN for whole website (PHP, Apache, MySQL) or just for images and CSS, JS files?
What's the best choice > cloud-hosting or dedicated-hosting? Does CDN has that support?
Witch hosting you suggest me the best - the fastest, stablest 100% uptime, CDN, not expensive at all?
CDN hosting is purely for static content only - it is never advised to host a dynamic application on CDN.
CDN is a content delivery network - your hosting company has edge servers on various locations across the globe. Job of these edge servers is to cache your content and deliver to your clients. If edge server doesn't have cached your content, they pull these content from the source server and deliver to your visitor. If they have cached copy, they deliver that immediately. This cache is usually refreshed every 12 hours - it varies host by host.
Since edge servers deliver cached copy, it is never advised to host dynamic websites on CDN Hosting.
Question:
What's the best choice? cloud-hosting or dedicated-hosting? Does CDN
has that support?
Answer:
Cloud hosting is superior by infrastructure. It has redundant array of disk drives and processors. You will enjoy almost 100% uptime on Cloud hosting.
Question:
Witch hosting you suggest me the best - the fastest, stablest 100%
uptime, CDN, not expensive at all?
Answer: From my professional experience, CDN hosting is the fastest, Cloud hosting is stable and 100% uptime and VPS Hosting is not expensive. If you want to make a choice of of these three, Cloud hosting is stable and cost-effective.
From the way the question was phrased, I think managed hosting would be most appropriate for your application.
It is fairly unlikely that you will run into any performance issues that are not self-inflicted (say, by writing suboptimal database queries, performing database processing in the frontend etc) unless you have a significant advertising budget and a mass market application, in which case you should also have a mid-sized IT department that can roll a custom solution.
Weighing cost and reliability against each other can be left to the accountants, for the most part.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I work for a medium sized software company and have been put to the task of finding a new way of electronically distributing our software. We don't have a super fast connection to distribute it ourselves so it would need to be a solution that we can upload to and send out links to customers. The customers won't be purchasing our software from our website as we already do most of our sales from direct sales and partner sales. Since I joined the company we have grown from CD distribution sized downloads to DVD sized distribution downloads. We released a new version and find the YouSendIT Service to be clunky and 99% of our customers receive a link to download the software. We only send out a printed media if requested. Is there a service besides yousendit that allows for unlimited file size uploads/downloads. I have heard of drop.io and it seemed to be similar to yousendit. If you could please point me in the direction of Electronic software distribution system that is 3rd party hosted would be appreciated.
Thanks
Mike
You should look into Content Delivery Networks, such as Amazon CloudFront.
You might want to reconsider the way you are going about this.
If you software is open source, you should be using sourceforge. Otherwise you should just get a cheap hosting plan with lots of transfer bandwidth.
For example, godaddy has an unlimited account (unlimited transfer, unlimited space) for about $14.95 per month.
You point a sub domain i.e. download.rivageek.com to that server. This gives your users confidence when they download your application.
If they have to go to some ad laden 3rd party site they might think twice about giving you money. If you lose only 1 customer to that, it pays for itself (assuming you charge more than 14.95 for your product).
The fine print on many of those 3rd party sites mean they own whatever you upload as well.
If you'd like something that allows (simplisticly) secure one-time downloads, I've used filehosting.org in the past. They give you a hashed link to the software when you upload it, which you can then email to anybody you want to be able to download the file. If you want, you can set it to delete the file after one download.
In response to using your own domain for the downloads, it's possible to configure both Amazon S3 and CloudFront to use a custom domain name. Here are the instructions for S3 -- very straight forward:
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/index.html?VirtualHosting.html
If emailing out a direct link to your distribution file (zip, etc.) is sufficient, I'd say go with one of these services -- they're very cost effective, reliable, and easy to set up.
You could use a filehosting service or get a regular web host with unlimited bandwidth just avoid Godaddy as its shared hosting is overcrowded and overbooked. (personal experience)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
So far I've read some blog articles about cloud computing and services for hosting applications in the grid.
If I'd wanted to have a web application running in the cloud for as little cost as possible, what would be the best solution?
Let's assume the following configuration:
J2EE web application
Any free database (MySQL, PostgreSQL)
Any web container to deploy the web application to
What application stack would you suggest to be the best combination of services to
host
deploy
run
web applications?
As an additional requirement, the services chosen shouldn't require a lot about server management like firewall settings etc.
This space is changing very quickly right now so I think you will find a lot of different good answers. If I where to do something on the cheap right now I would probably pick the following stack:
Web server: apache
App server: tomcat - use the clustering support if you need to grow or split at the apache level or even introduce a load balancer box at the very front
DB server: MySql - mainly because it is easy to cluster
Platform: scalr - The cloud setup is simple and cheap. It uses Amazon's cloud on the backend and that gets you a lot of extras like putting servers in different datacenters for redundancy.
Now you can add in or remove parts of this. You may not need a web tier out there and can just expose tomcat directly. You may need EJBs and in that case you can just fire up more nodes for that and create another tier. You may want to add a tier for load balancing in front of apache. You may want to use the Amazon cloudfront service to push static files to their edge network.
I have investigated Amazon's ec2 solution recently. It is quite good and there are many pre-built boxes that you can use if you find one that suits your need. I think there will still be some server management involved...you cannot get away from that. But the pre built boxes will make it easier.
The cost is reasonable as you only pay for what you use.
[EDIT] The pre-built boxes are called Amazon Machine Images (AMIs).
I think you can get no where closer to Jelastic. It has all the stuffs that #carson mentioned. Specially I will mention their unique web console and they do not have any dependency for any API or console to be installed. I use their platform for many of the clients for my startup. Also additionally you get a nginx support for load balancing and configuring it right away from the console.