I am a broke college student. I have built a small web app in PHP5 and MySQL, and I already have a domain. What is an affordable way to get it online? A few people have suggested amazon's cloud services, but that seems equivalent to slitting my wrists and watching money slowly trickle out. So suggestions? Hosting companies, CIA drop sites, anything?
Update: A lot of suggestions have been for Dreamhost. Their plan allows for 5TB of bandwidth. Could anyone put this in perspective? For instance, how much bandwidth does a site with the kind of traffic StackOverflow get?
I say pay the 50-80 bucks for a real host. The classic "you get what you pay for" is very true for hosting. This will save you time, time you can spend getting those $80.
I use and recommend DreamHost for both their prices and customer service. I've hosted several sites here and performance has always been good. $5.95 a month for their basic package.
I highly recommend HostRocket. I have been with them for about 6 or 7 years now with multiple domains and have found uptime and database availability flawless. The only reason I'm leaving them is because I'm doing some .NET web apps now and HostRocket is purely LAMP based.
But without making things an ongoing ad. I will put in two "gotchas" that you'll want to be wary of when searching:
"Free" hosting services. Most of these will make you subdomain on them and worse, they'll put a header and a footer on your page (sometimes in gaudy frame format) that they advertise heavily on. I don't care how poor you are, this will not help attract traffic to your app.
A lot of the cheaper rates depend on pre-payment. HostRocket will give you $4.99 a month in hosting, but you have to pre-pay for 3 years. If you go month to month, it is $8.99. There are definitely advantages to the pre-payment, but you don't want to get caught with close to twice the monthly payment if you weren't expecting it.
I recently found a site called WebHostingStuff that seems to have a decent list of hosts and folks that put in their reviews. While I wouldn't consider it "the final authority" I have been using it as of late for some ideas when looking for a new host.
I hope this helps and happy hunting!
I have no specific sites to suggest, but a typical hosting company will charge you less than $10 per month for service. A simple Google search will turn up lots of results for "comparison of web hosts": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=comparison+of+web+hosts&btnG=Google+Search
Well, Amazon EC2 is only as bad as the amount of traffic you get. So the ideal situation is to monetize your site (ads, affiliate programs, etc) so that that more traffic you get, the more you pay Amazon, but the more you make...in theory of course.
As for a budget of nothing...there's not really much you can do...hosting typically always costs something, but since you are using the LAMP stack, it's pretty cheap.
For example, hosting on GoDaddy.com for 1year can be about $50-60 which is not too bad.
I use dreamhost which costs about $80 per year, but I get MUCH more storage and bandwidth.
I agree with pix0r. With your requirements of php5 and mysql it seems that for starting out Dreamhost would be a good recommendation. You can always move it over pretty easily to ec2 if it takes off.
Dreamhost is great and cheap for a php5 mysql setup that gives you command line access. The problems come if you want to use some other web language/framework like RoR or Python/Django/Pylons. I know there are hacks to get things working, but last time I tried they were spotty at best and not supported by Dreamhost.
It may be helpful to know what kind of app we are talking about. Also what sort of traffic do you expect and to echo Adam's note what sort of business model (if any) do you have?
I've been at HostingMatters for years. They're relatively cheap, and their service is awesome. <12 hours for any support ticket I've ever had.
Additionally, since I've been with them for about ten years, they bumped me to an unmetered plan for no cost (at the same $10/month I was paying.) ....
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
At my company we are looking at hosting a blog and a CMS . We are still in the process of building the product and havent made it live yet. We are looking at some hosting options. We need to have complete root shell access to the system .So, i have the following two questions.
1.) Should we go for Amazon EC2 or VPS, considering our present requirements which i stated above and also considering that we may need to scale in the future ?
2.) If VPS is the way to go for us,could you please recommend some good service.Also which plan should we go for and also how much would it cost ?
Thank You.
Disclosure: I used to work for Linode.
Speaking objectively, I've heard from several customers that have migrated both from EC2 (as well as to EC2) that say Amazon EC2 is a bit difficult to work with for hosting Web services. From the cost per resource to the various quirks of their service -- last I heard, EC2 is designed more for utility computing than running a Web site and its associated services. I would recommend EC2 more for these kinds of applications:
Processing videos and other multimedia.
Throwaway computing, where nodes are added and removed as demand goes up and down.
Any service where CPU is the bottleneck.
A VPS is a much better choice for you, as you get root and -- if a company does its VPS service right -- scaling is ridiculous easy. If you plan for scalability from the get go with a load balancing solution, you can add a node with Linode in under a few minutes.
The two front runners in the VPS market are Slicehost and Linode. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. Again speaking objectively, Linode's cost per resource is better than Slicehost's, and Linode offers a few services Slicehost does not. Both have fairly active and helpful communities, and both are reliable services. Here's a comparison of both where Linode was ultimately chosen, and a discussion on Slicehost's forums with customers taking both sides.
I'm happy to answer any questions you have, on StackExchange or off.
Go with Linode. You won't regret it. I was a customer long before I was hired.
Another thought I just had is that it's unwise to put all your eggs in one basket; I recently completed full support for the wonderful libcloud project, and Slicehost is fully supported as well, as is EC2. Regardless of what platform you choose, management tools are catching up with cloud ideals.
EC2 is only reasonable if you plan on taking advantage of the scaling. With your dev server, I'm sure you're going to want it up at all times, and with that I think the cheapest instance is like $70 a month at amazon.
Just got for Linode. Great community and all that for only $20/mo.
While I agree with other answers that EC2 is more for data processing than web hosting, I found that now EC2 offers free micro-instances for one year and you may sign up for one and play with it yourself and see which is the best option for you.
If you're not planning on scaling up and down on a regular basis I would recommend a VPS. Jed Smith mentioned two options for that and another choice for a VPS is http://prgmr.com/xen/ which I've used and am happy with. They don't offer as many options as Slicehost or Linode, but they offer more RAM per dollar than most other providers I've seen. They also don't offer any wizards or ajax console access or other high level features. However, if you're ok with setting everything up via a command line console they are an option you should consider.
I have been using https://www.atum.com for years. I was with Amazon, it just didn't cut it for my needs. We have a lot of ram and disk requirements, I found the IO/RAM to be quite bad.
I used Linode for a while, they were quite good as well. I went to Atum mainly because of a friend who was with them, had good things to say about the performance. I have a lot of customers in Canada and that is where there datacenter is because of the patriot act, it had to be in Canada so. Atum VPS has been great so far to me =)
We have been using vps.net for a while and quite satisified with it.
I love linode's offerings as well though I haven't used it yet.
I have been doing some catching up lately by reading about cloud hosting.
For a client that has about the same characteristics as StackOverflow (Windows stack, same amount of visitors), I need to set up a hosting environment. Stackoverflow went from renting to buying.
The question is why didn't they choose cloud hosting?
Since Stackoverflow doesn't use any weird stuff that needs to run on a dedicated server and supposedly cloud hosting is 'the' solution, why not use it?
By getting answers to this question I hope to be able to make a weighted decision myself.
I honestly do not know why SO runs like it does, on privately owned servers.
However, I can assume why a website would prefer this:
Maintainability - when things DO go wrong, you want to be hands-on on the problem, and solve it as quickly as possible, without needing to count on some third-party. Of course the downside is that you need to be available 24/7 to handle these problems.
Scalability - Cloud hosting (or any external hosting, for that matter) is very convenient for a small to medium-sized site. And most of the hosting providers today do give you the option to start small (shared hosting for example) and grow to private servers/VPN/etc... But if you truly believe you will need that extra growth space, you might want to count only on your own infrastructure.
Full Control - with your own servers, you are never bound to any restrictions or limitations a hosting service might impose on you. Run whatever you want, hog your CPU or your RAM, whatever. It's your server. Many hosting providers do not give you this freedom (unless you pay up, of course :) )
Again, this is a cost-effectiveness issue, and each business will handle it differently.
I think this might be a big reason why:
Cloud databases are typically more
limited in functionality than their
local counterparts. App Engine returns
up to 1000 results. SimpleDB times out
within 5 seconds. Joining records from
two tables in a single query breaks
databases optimized for scale. App
Engine offers specialized storage and
query types such as geographical
coordinates.
The database layer of a cloud instance
can be abstracted as a separate
best-of-breed layer within a cloud
stack but developers are most likely
to use the local solution for both its
speed and simplicity.
From Niall Kennedy
Obviously I cannot say for StackOverflow, but I have a few clients that went the "cloud hosting" route. All of which are now frantically trying to get off of the cloud.
In a lot of cases, it just isn't 100% there yet. Limitations in user tracking (passing of requestor's IP address), fluctuating performance due to other load on the cloud, and unknown usage number are just a few of the issues that have came up.
From what I've seen (and this is just based on reading various blogged stories) most of the time the dollar-costs of cloud hosting just don't work out, especially given a little bit of planning or analysis. It's only really valuable for somebody who expects highly fluctuating traffic which defies prediction, or seasonal bursts. I guess in it's infancy it's just not quite competitive enough.
IIRC Jeff and Joel said (in one of the podcasts) that they did actually run the numbers and it didn't work out cloud-favouring.
I think Jeff said in one of the Podcasts that he wanted to learn a lot of things about hosting, and generally has fun doing it. Some headaches aside (see the SO blog), I think it's a great learning experience.
Cloud computing definitely has it's advantages as many of the other answers have noted, but sometimes you just want to be able to control every bit of your server.
I looked into it once for quite a small site. Running a small Amazon instance for a year would cost around £700 + bandwidth costs + S3 storage costs. VPS hosting with similar specs and a decent bandwidth allowance chucked in is around £500. So I think cost has a lot to do with it unless you are going to have fluctuating traffic and lots of it!
I'm sure someone from SO will answer it but "Isn't just more hassle"? Old school hosting is still cheap and unless you got big scalability problems why would you do cloud hosting?
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm looking for a cost effective tool for managing an web app on Ec2. Rightscale seems to the big dog and charges for it. Scalr looks like a more cost effective solution but it's hard to find out any real customer experiences..
The key aspects I'm looking for is a load balancer (http and https) and a way to automatically bring online additional web servers capacity as load increases as well as terminate the instances when load falls off.
From what I can tell, lots of people are rolling their own stuff here. We're trying to release an app and don't really want to have to fight too many heavy sys admin battles. Given the importance of performance etc I'd be grateful to hear advise and experiences from the field on this.
I am a Scalr user, a Scalr.net subscriber, and have become a Scalr enthusiast. I cannot possibly afford Rightscale.
Scalr can do what you ask.
Scalr has three images (each with 32/64 bit versions), plus a base (generic) image:
1) A load balancer image, running nginx. A highly available setup requires two of these. Scalr will manage your nameservice, and round robin between them. If one goes down, Scalr will remove it from DNS and bring up another instance. It is possible to run other load balancers, but nginx is the default.
2) Several application server images are available, running Apache/Tomcat/Rails. You setup your application here, be it PHP/Perl/Python/Java/Ruby/whatever. nginx routes requests between these instances grouped by unique user (based on IP + browser). Scalr monitors these for upness too, and replaces broken instances.
3) A MySQL database image, with automatic master/slave replication. Just deploy your schema, and Scalr handles replication and replaces defunct servers. It will also backup your data periodically. Scalr's DNS provides master and slave hostnames, so you can have your app read from the slaves and write to the master.
All of these instance types will auto-scale based on load. You start with the base image closest to what you're doing, and then you customize them for your application. For instance, we deploy our Perl/Catalyst app on the apache server instances but we serve static content from the nginx front-end servers. We had to modify our application slightly to use read/write database handles.
All in all, it took about three weeks of working through bugs in Scalr to get our application to a reliable state where I am confident that it IS highly available with Scalr. Their support was phenomenal, so the bugs didn't bother me too much, and the system is really coming along. It is approaching serious reliability.
As a side note, the best feature of Scalr is the 'Synchronize to All' feature, which auto-bundles your AMI and re-deploys it on a new instance - all without a service interruption. This saves you the time of going through the lengthy EC2 image/AMI creation process, which can otherwise make very simple admin tasks take 20 minutes. You can use this whether you are scaling your server farm or not - it would be very handy even on a single instance.
I pay Scalr.net $50 a month to host the service for me because I think it saves me time and money. The bottom line so far is this: at my last gig, we had a systems guy working on our highly available Linux DB + app server setup for a year... and he failed to achieve the kind of reliability that I achieved in three weeks. The savings by using Scalr as compared to rolling my own are extreme.
All that being said, if I could afford Rightscale, I would be using Rightscale. But the up-front fee and $500 a month make that impossible. There has been talk of waving the up-front fee in exchange for waving the consulting that it includes, but the monthly service fee isn't going anywhere.
I should mention that at the moment, sclar.net's website is down, so if I wanted to manage any of my server farms (don't have them up atm), I simply couldn't right now. It is not clear whether scaling is working for scalr.net subscribers right now, or not. Which is to say... this is perhaps not a mature solution yet. This doesn't happen often, before tonight the only downtime I've experienced were in periods of a few minutes at a time. But yeah... its down RIGHT NOW, so I must mention it :)
I would suggest a thorough reading of the support group at http://groups.google.com/group/scalr-discuss before making your decision. If you pick Scalr, be prepared to test your setup and work through any issues you have on the google group.
I will comment on your question, since giving a concrete answer is a little ambitious.
First, I see that you have haproxy on your tags. That is definitely the best load balancing software proven in EC2. There is documentation and experiences in the AWS forums on the use of haproxy.
I am unable to give you an opinion on scalr, but Rightscale is going the right direction. One of RightScale most interesting features in their roadmap is that they are a mgmt cloud system for any cloud not just EC2 of Amazon. That makes them very promising when trying to request load balancing and upscaling in need.
Also you can signup for a developer free account on rightscale and you can test some of their AMI and free scripts, they are pretty impressive.
Well, this might sound like I am working there or something, but I am a just a cloud user, no connection with them. If that crosses your mind.
I hope this helps, at least adds to the discussion.
Geo
Been on Scalr for about two months now and have slowly transitioned several production applications to the platform with good results. I strongly recommend them for quick turn around/support and value. I would like to see them improve availability of their platform.
All in all, a good fit for the original poster based on the simple use case presented.
Every service has a bad day. AWS services see down time. However, there are still users running their apps on AWS.
I have a few farms on Scalr.net and compared to Rightscale. I don't have to pay an arm and a leg.
Overall, service is very reliable. And now with the scripting engine i can setup my own scripts to govern my instances.
With Regards
Hareem Haque
Both services (rightscale and scalr) are great. The offer is not the same and the price is not the same too. But they are both what I was looking for. Regaring our budget scalr fits my needs. I found the support through a google group very strange at the beginning, but it is very fast and efficient.
Their solution is also open source (not bad) and they also have a V2 in their roadmap with support to other providers.
Wait and see, but til now, I'm very happy with it
Deciding on the right choice may not be as cut and dry as everyone expects. I have met with and heard talks from Scalr about their platform and have also listened to RightScale discuss their platform. If you have a simple SOA (App Server - Database Server - File Server), then either choice will be right for your company.
Ultimately, if you have created some custom middleware and you rely on known sockets or specific points for handshakes, you will need to consider load-balancing and auto-scaling what you can and fall back to your own solutions for what can't be managed with either of these services.
Some people say that automatic scaling won't solve the problem
I am looking into Scalr right now and although it all looks good, I decided to continue with my own scripting for the purpose of cloud management / scaling. I have 8 servers right now and am paying only the AWS fees. I use chef (self-hosted), nagios, and a lot of other tools. My databases are mysql and mongodb, load balancer is haproxy, app layer is rails. Until I need 100s of servers, I think I will just keep scriptin' ;-)
I have reasonable experience to manage my own server, so gogrid style management is not a problem. But seems mosso is a tag cheaper somewhat- except the very difficult to access compute cycles terms. Anyone could share about this would be very welcomed.
Well, even at the current moment as correct answer is marked GoGrid choice, I think I need to share my experience with GoGrid.
It's been several weeks after we broke our commitment with them and I think I'm pretty calm now to write cons for them.
1) Images. We were trying to use Windows 2008 images and those were pretty old. To be up to date, you need to install 80+ updates and that takes a while. But that's not the worst thing. Worst thing is, that default image hdd size is 20gb and that was not enough to complete windows updating, at least in automatic way (not talking about installing additional software). There's no way to increase image size, so you need to make all kinds of workarounds (for example disable virtual memory, when installing).
2) Support. It's not fanatic. I would call it robotic. Although live chat is working, at least we were unable to solve by live chat most of the problems, because live chat support personel would always forward request to upper level, which is not accessible through live chat. Another thing is, that as I understood, engineers, that have real knowledge and access to infrastructure don't work at night and in weekends (I was working from Europe, so I had completely different time zone).
3) Service Level Agreement. You need to be careful about small print (for example I've missed that rule 1hour of non working is compensated 100x was working only for one month bill), but there are things, that are not mentioned - for example I was told, that SLA terms do not work for cloud storage, although I think you won't find this mentioned in SLA.
4) Reaction time. Although in SLA they say, that will solve any issue in two hours, we couldn't get solution in 10 days. Problem was clear: network speed between gogrid server instances, also between instance and cloud storage was 10-15kbps (measured using several tools, such as netio and etc., tested several instances and so on). That wasn't because they forgot or smth., we were checking status at various levels every day. My management talked with VP of technology or something and he promised that problem will be solved in nearest time, several days passed and no solution was proposed. And some of the emails about how they are investigating problem made me laugh.
5) Internet speeds. Sometimes they were really good (I've measured 550mbps download speed), but sometimes they are terrible (upload up to 0.05mbps).
If someone thinks, that this is some kind of competitors posting, I have chat and email logs about mentioned issues, also screen shots of internet speed tests and could provide under request.
Ok, and one good thing about their service - you can use several IP addresses on one instance (what our current hosting provider - Amazon EC2 is unable to do).
Stay away from GoGrid !
I don't have any experience with Mosso, but I do have (unfortunately) VERY bad experience with GoGrid.
As other people mentioned, their support is horrible. Most times you will get a live chat person that really is no help at all - doesn't really know their system or how it works so he can't really help with any problem beyond restarting your server.
Another issue is their performance which is at best unreliable and at worst just not there. Starting from I/O which can drop to < 1mb/s (measured by a few tools) - ranging to network connections that are very slow - load balancers which do not spread the load (2 servers on RoundRobin get 70/30)
Not to mention a very buggy portal - new server picks a free ip, which I am then told is in use...and not by me - even though I have the whole range "assigned" to me -
new cases which are saved without the text - buttons which say "upgrade to a new plan" but do nothing... etc... etc...
Their billing department which is not responsive and you have to argue about everything (why am I paying $0.5/gb traffic when the site states $0.29 ?????)
I have been using them for about a year now - and that's only because I don't have the time to move. Hopefully I will be able to get the hell out of there in a month.
As you can tell, I am very very frustrated with them. I know it's my fault I didn't run away sooner, but I really didn't expect such a low level of service and quality.
beware....
Yoav.
Mosso has way better service though, and the clients stay happy. The only issue I have experienced with them ever was installing DNN (which is a pain period) and a single client machine refused to allow for FTP access to their site... but again, Mosso techs did everything they could to get it going.
It's simple, Mosso is just like a "reseller" hosting. They provide you everything whitelabel from billing to control panel then you sell it back to customers.
If you are developer, I recommend you choose GoGrid. Firstly, Mosso doesn't provide SSH access. Secondly, if you are RoR/Mongrel user, you are capped to limited RAM (unless you pay extra in addition to $100). Moreover, GoGrid allows you to choose server image (CentOS, Redhat, Windows) with some out-of-the-box support for RoR and LAMP.
Somemore, GoGrid provides you initial credits ($50 or $95 if you use MS-WEBFWRD) for you to try out before actually paying for it.
Mosso does not give you Admin control over the "servers" anymore...
Disclosure: I am the Technology Evangelist for GoGrid.
I wanted to address some of the points above by #Giedrius and #Yoav. I'm sorry if your experience was lower than expected. We have and continue to make dramatic improvements and upgrades to both our product features as well as our service. That being said, I want to answer a few points that you listed above, specifically:
1) Images - Do note that the HD size (persistent storage) is tied to the RAM allocation. Our base images for the lowest RAM allocation (512 MB) is now 30 GBs. Also, because some users experienced some performance issues with low allocations of RAM on Windows servers, we have set a minimum allocation of 1 GB or higher for most Windows instances. Also, all of our Windows 2008 instances now have SP2 on them: wiki.gogrid.com/wiki/index.php/Server_Images#Windows_2008_Server
2) Support - We are always working on making our support team and processes even better. Remember that there are several public clouds that charge for support, something we don't do. Yes, it is available 24/7/365 and you are correct that there are typically more support personnel available during business hours (that is the norm for many companies). Be we are here to help 24x7. Also, every GoGrid account gets a dedicated service team which consists of a variety of personnel from our organization (acct mgmt, tech support, billing, etc.)
3) SLA - We offer one of the most robust SLAs in the marketplace. Also, Cloud Storage IS in fact covered in our SLA under Section VI here: www.gogrid.com/legal/sla.php .
4) Reaction time - I do not believe that we ever state in the SLA that any issue will be "resolved" within 2 hours. I doubt that ANY hosting provider can offer that, simply because of the nature of hosting and the complexity therein. We will acknowledge and respond to tickets (as stated within the SLA) within 2 hours or 30 minutes depending on the nature of the ticket. I'm sorry if that isn't clear so please let me know where it can be better explained.
5) Internet speeds - we have multiple bandwidth providers for our datacenter. It is not typical that there is latency, jitter or slow transfer speeds. If a situation is encountered where the speeds are not what you expect, I encourage you to open a support ticket so that we can investigate.
6) I/O - recently we have been benchmarked by an independent 3rd party, CloudHarmony.com, as having the best I/O of cloud providers: http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/06/disk-io-benchmarking-in-cloud.html
7) Network Connections - see #5 above
8) Load Balancers - if you are encountering balancing issues, we encourage you to report it. Details on our LB can be found on the wiki: wiki.gogrid.com/wiki/index.php/(F5)_Load_Balancer
9) Portal - We continue to make optimizations to the web portal including recently launching a "list view" for customers with larger environments. If the portal is "misbehaving", I recommend clearing your cache and using the latest browser version (I personally use Chrome and Firefox regularly on the portal w/o issue). Alternatively, you could use the API to manage your GoGrid infrastructure.
10) Transfer Plan - A few months ago, we released some new RAM and Transfer Plans. It seems that you are still on the old Transfer plan if you have $0.50/GB instead of $0.29. We don't automatically change customers' plans without their permission. So I recommend that you upgrade your plan to enjoy the new pricing.
Hope that helps answer the questions/concerns. I didn't mean for it to be a sales pitch (as I'm not a sales guy) but I wanted to be sure that other readers had "the other side of the story."
Please contact me should you have any questions: michael[at]gogrid.com
Thanks!
-Michael
I'm looking for someone reasonably cheap but better than the majority of budget hosts out there. I'm currently with brinkster.net and I've become increasingly annoyed at the their immense unreliability and low available resources.
Fasthosts business plan is close, but has no mysql, only has ASP.NET 2.0 and is maybe slightly more expensive than I was hoping for.
I have had several sites hosted on http://discountasp.net and have had very good results. They are on year 4 of being voted best ASP.NET host in the asp.netPRO reader's choice survey.
I have had great luck with Viux.com - their customer service is top-notch and they were quick to implement asp.net 3.5. I moved all my sites (5) to Viux now and couldn't be happier. Very reliable and I can't say enough about their super fast and friendly service! MySQL comes free with all of their plans and MSSQL is $2/month.
I have tried quite a few hosts, and these guys are my favorite. If you decide on another, just make sure it is not M6.net, their customer service was just horrendous!
GoDaddy supports .NET 3.5 and mysql on their basic hosting packages.
We've used GoDaddy at my primary employment (day job :-) for several years and have had a positive experience with them (I also recently switched my home business from Yahoo! Small Business to GoDaddy).
Regarding reliability, I haven't had any problems with downtime. As a result, I have no first hand tech support experience with GoDaddy, but from what I read on the boards their tech support is pretty good (comparable to any other tech support I guess). They offer LINUX and Windows hosting (if that matters to you), MySQL and MSSQL database support, and .NET 3.5/AJAX.
And the price was reasonable, as far as I'm concerned.
I've been with these guys for quite a bit,
http://www.webhost4life.com/
Cheap and cheerful.
Something that might interest you -- ScottGu's latest blog post mentions Amazon's EC2 is going to support ASP.NET.
http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2008/10/coming-soon-ama.html
Depending on what you plan on doing, that could be of interest. It's usually pretty cheap, as well.
Dreamhost supports stackoverflow's podcast
http://www.dreamhost.com/
Edit: It looks like they don't support ASP.NET though, that was unexpected.
Take a look at ReliableSite.Net
It is cheap and good. They even throw a free MS SQL 2005 database(1 GB- Extra DB costs $1) what other places charge $10/Month and give you less then 500MB of space.
So you can upgrade to mssql 2005(not sure if you where just using mysql because it is cheaper).
If you don't want to bother changing to mssql 2005 then you can save it for another project(you can host unlimited domains on Reliable) and use the mysql database that they also throw in for free.
I find Reliable does not nickle and dim you for every single thing and gives reasonable prices and have great coupons.
Like this coupon for 15% off for life: "aspforum"
Planet Small Business http://www.planetsmb.com/ are pretty cheap, and have excellent customer service.
The only hassle I've had with them is over hosting WCF services. I wasn't able to host it as a native ASP.Net service, you have to do a bit of extra plumbing to manually add a service host, but nothing impossible, and their customer support was there ready and waiting.
Highly recommended.
I Use SmarterAsp.net to host Multiple Sites ; they have good control panel and their Price start fro $2.95/Month you can also get 60 days free trial so you can decide if it's suitable for you
http://www.SmarterASP.NET/index?r=100819197