What hosting company do you like to use?


(Dave) #62

No need to feel bad about being with GoDaddy. I have some clients that have been hosted by them for ten years…with virtually zero downtime (one afternoon, many years ago, they were down for a few hours). In addition, despite warnings of compatibility from a (very) few add-on developers, all of my stacks and add-ons work great on my GoDaddy-hosted sites (I do not have any ecommerce sites on GoDaddy, so I can’t speak for shopping cart add-ons).

I’d also give shout-outs to Chillidog and DreamHost - both of whom offer FREE one-click SSL certificates. Google has announced that going HTTPS will give sites a ranking boost. In my opinion, SSL should be essential for not just ecommerce site owners, but also for small business owners to add more secure browsing experience for users. So, if I were comparing hosts today, I would absolutely factor in the cost of SSL Certificates, along with downtime, ease-of-use (cPanel or similar dashboard), and the reputation for customer service.


(Chris) #63

For me a local hosting provider is a must, especially if you need good and fast support. I want to know how to reach them and to be able to even drive in and have a serious talk to them in case I have to :wink:


(Barrie McDermid) #64

Well further to my last post, Bluehost are only doing free SSL for Wordpress.

So I’m now in the market.


(Gregory Barchard) #65

Happy to help you get started at Chillidog. Just let me know :slight_smile:


(unluckytoe@mac.com) #66

Hands down Chillidog. IMHO, no other hosting company provides you with the same level of care and service that Mr. Barchard does. I currently use Puppy VPS offered by Chillidog and I love it.


(Gregory Barchard) #67

As a recent convert to the Puppy VPS, I’m really glad you’re enjoying it :slight_smile:


(Barrie McDermid) #68

Does anyone use Amazon S3 to host their site?


(steve bee) #69

Might be wrong, but I don’t think you can host anything other than completely flat HTML sites on Amazon.


(Barrie McDermid) #70

Ah right. I’m just looking into creating an account to store some download resources and they say they can host full sites.


(steve bee) #71

Might be wrong then. Just bear in mind you get no support from Amazon unless you’re on a corporate deal with them. I’ve used them for years for various services, and unless it’s a techie question, they say no.

In all honesty, don’t waste your time punting around for a cheap deal, as you’ll regret it. Just get in touch with @barchard and let him move you to Chilli. You might pay a couple of quid more each month, but really, what’s a couple of quid for dealing with someone who knows small business and knows RW?

With Greg (@barchard) you know the service will be top line, and the money you pay goes to fund someones coffee habit, not a CEO’s next yacht.


(Barrie McDermid) #72

I’ve already moved my main email account to Gregg, so I am supporting the coffee habit as it were, but the disk space and bandwidth seem to be quite small when compared to what I have with Bluehost. I know unlimited is a gimmick, but It’s nice to know that I don’t need to worry about things on that front.


(steve bee) #73

What are you actually using?


(Will Woodgate) #74

It is feasible to host static websites on Amazon:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/gettingstarted/latest/swh/website-hosting-intro.html

A simple site published with RapidWeaver will work perfectly. You can point your domain name there too. I’m surprised that more people don’t go this route. Amazon is really cheap and the documentation they put together is some of the best (hence limited one-to-one support).

However, you have to remember that you don’t get a normal ‘CPanel’ or other frontend to administrate your website with. No PHP, SQLite or MySQL support. So you often need to have the expertise to setup additional ‘appliances’ and other Amazon services to do anything more than a static website.

‘Unlimited’ hosting is a con - a false economy - nothing more than a cheap bribe. Shared hosting companies physically cannot give you a trillion teraflops of diskspace and bandwidth! Like the airline industry often rents planes and buys aviation fuel months in advance; many hosting companies work on a similar basis; they rent or part-share infrusture and estimate how much bandwidth they need to buy for their customers going forward.

For this reason, an ‘unlimited’ host will be quick to shut down any website they feel is in breach of a fair usage policy. This is there ‘get out clause’. Simply a threshold to ensure what you use and pay them each month doesn’t exceed the wholesale price they are paying the next company higher up the chain. Everyone is in it to make some money!

It would be better to use a company like Chillidog hosting for what it does best - serving webpages quickly and reliably (with RapidWeaver specific support available if you need it). Use Amazon S3 as a suitable backend warehouse for all your big files. Remember that Dropbox and Netflix use Amazon S3, so that’s proof it is cheap and reliable!


(Becca) #75

May I ask how long you have been using falcoda for please? TIA


(Barrie McDermid) #76

I looked at Falcoda as they’re British, but the SSL certificate seemed to bump the cost up.


(Becca) #77

Thanks Bazza, if I am only producing portfolio based sites with no money or ‘personal’ data being taken from visitors, do I need to worry too much about SSL? THANKS!!


(Doug Bennett) #78

SSL will effect your search engine page ranking. There’s no reason today to choose a hosting company that doesn’t offer free certificates. Everything on the internet should be encrypted if nothing else for your customers privacy.

There’s lots of choices in hosting companies.


(Paul Rowe) #79

For my money (and indeed my site) it has to be Chillidog

Paul


(Barrie McDermid) #80

What Doug said. Some browsers will show and alert which never looks good.


(LJ) #81

At present Google Chrome shows an ‘Unsecure Site’ alert in the browser bar when you are filling in a form on an http site. From July this year Chrome will show this warning on EVERY page of http sites not just those where you are interacting. It’s probably only a matter of time before a) the warning gets more prominent and b) other browsers follow suit.