My new app is almost finished (yay!) , but I requires a server to have any purpose. Until now I have simply been running it on one of my home computers for debugging, but now I need somewhere to put it. I decided VPS should be good enough, but I there is like a gazillion different hosting companies. Im just wondering if any of you have any experiences to share.
The requirement for the server is that it needs to support .net 4 and run a windows OS.
Accuwebhosting are they any good?
I’m absolutely new to hosting and servers etc , so I have absolutely no idea on which companies are bad and good.
I tried searching for a similar thread first but “VPS” didn’t show any results.
Thx in advance
My new app is almost finished (yay!) , but I requires a server to have any purpose. Until now I have simply been running it on one of my home computers for debugging, but now I need somewhere to put it. I decided VPS should be good enough, but I there is like a gazillion different hosting companies. Im just wondering if any of you have any experiences to share.
The requirement for the server is that it needs to support .net 4 and run a windows OS.
Accuwebhosting are they any good?
I’m absolutely new to hosting and servers etc , so I have absolutely no idea on which companies are bad and good.
I tried searching for a similar thread first but “VPS” didn’t show any results.
Thx in advance
I've got a VPS server with accuwebhosting. So far they are pretty good - and the prices aren't too bad either.
I've got a 4GB VPS server running Windows Server 32bit. Since it's pretty much your own windows server installation, you can install whatever you want on it. So I've got .NET 4.0, MVC.NET 3, and SQL Server 2008 installed as well.
I think il go for the Amazon EC2, only paying for what i use is pretty appealing to me
Apart from the fact that you'll pay _much more_ from what you need
We have serveral servers on EC2, it's not for the faint-hearted, bills can rack up very very quickly, have a very careful look at all the hidden costs.
Apart from the fact that you'll pay _much more_ from what you need
We have serveral servers on EC2, it's not for the faint-hearted, bills can rack up very very quickly, have a very careful look at all the hidden costs.
Disagree. Amazon are very clear about what everything costs, and it is NOT expensive. Almost certainly, its going to be cheaper than running and maintaining your own servers.
The best part is, if your app suddenly becomes super popular and you need to deploy extra servers to handle millions of requests, you can do so with a few mouse clicks and no capital outlay.
Also, Amazon are now offering a "micro" EC2 instance (and other AWS services) *free* for a year, which is great when developing/testing your app:
Disagree. Amazon are very clear about what everything costs, and it is NOT expensive. Almost certainly, its going to be cheaper than running and maintaining your own servers.
Not really, it depends.
Amazon is clear, up to a point. For example we spend every month 50% of our budget in "I/O usage", which is billed at $0.10 per 1 million I/O requests.
Now the way they calculate the I/O usage it's a bit of a voodoo, and it's hard to predict. Sure, you can, but still, it's hard even for a seasoned IT specialist.
The cost ranks up really quickly if you use S3, load balancer, and snapshots, and if you transfer data internationally between EC regions.
We have 2 apps with thousands of access everyday, one is running on amazon ec2 servers and one on a JaguarPC VPS, while the amazon it's quicker (but not more reliable as we suffered data losses), it's 4x more expensive than an equivalent JaguarPC machine, due to the excessive I/O charging.
Quote:
The best part is, if your app suddenly becomes super popular and you need to deploy extra servers to handle millions of requests, you can do so with a few mouse clicks and no capital outlay.
Ehmm... Not really... We've spent a full month to adjust the load balancer into something that made sense.
The main bottleneck it's the distributed RDS (database), and it's still very early days for that.
Saying it's a "few click" away is _very_ misleading, as you would have to think, plan, architect your app from the ground up with the "cloud" in mind.
That's no easy task, especially using a RDS that actually work well.
We've also looked at other services like rackspace and similar, all have slightly different price plans, and it's really depends on what you need, and having clear in mind what you are going to use most, in our case rackspace wasn't good cos it was charging more for bandwidth but less per storage (If I recall correctly) so we've opted for Amazon, but then discovered the I/O bill...
Quote:
Also, Amazon are now offering a "micro" EC2 instance (and other AWS services) *free* for a year, which is great when developing/testing your app:
yes that's nice, although you will pay if you use more machines on a load balancer, which is what this EC2 is all about really.
I'm not saying amazon EC2 it's bad, I'm saying it takes time and effort to master, it can be expensive, and it's much easier to go for something "ready to go" if you are not building the next twitter.
We have 2 apps with thousands of access everyday, one is running on amazon ec2 servers and one on a JaguarPC VPS, while the amazon it's quicker (but not more reliable as we suffered data losses), it's 4x more expensive than an equivalent JaguarPC machine, due to the excessive I/O charging.
If you configured your EC2 servers the same way as your VPS servers, ie your own DB instances with local storage, you wouldn't get charged for IO. This is an unfair comparison because you're doing things (ie using RDS) with EC2 that you aren't doing with your VPS.
In my case, IO charges are less than 5% of my monthly bill. I don't use RDS, but do have my root volumes mounted from EBS.
Quote:
The main bottleneck it's the distributed RDS (database), and it's still very early days for that.
Quote:
Saying it's a "few click" away is _very_ misleading, as you would have to think, plan, architect your app from the ground up with the "cloud" in mind.
It's easy enough to build a "cloud scalable" app from the start if you follow a few basic design principles - ie REST, and not using a relational DB.
Relational DBs, as you point out, do complicate matters as they can be tricky to scale, but you can avoid all that if can build your application using a cloud-style, non-relational DB like Google's App engine datastore or Amazon's SimpleDB. These data stores scale and replicate automatically.
Also, SimpleDB doesn't charge for IO, just space used and data transfer.
I appreciate that not every application is appropriate for non-relational storage, but I would say the vast majority of mobile app servers are.
Quote:
I'm not saying amazon EC2 it's bad, I'm saying it takes time and effort to master, it can be expensive, and it's much easier to go for something "ready to go" if you are not building the next twitter.
EC2 *is* "ready to go". You don't have to deal with things like RDS and load balancing at the start if you don't want to, but they're there once you need them.
If you configured your EC2 servers the same way as your VPS servers, ie your own DB instances with local storage, you wouldn't get charged for IO.
This is not what I've seen, you get charged for I/O anyway if you are accessing the disk. And we did :/
And again, even compared to a VPS server you can find cheaper options, unless you use your EC2 machines on a very low volume of traffic, and with no extra services like load balancer, storage, monitoring etc...
Our app is in the region of $150+VAT a month bill per EC2 machine, + $450+VAT on off reserved instance for 12 months.
Now, I bet you you can find cheaper options.
The thing is, if you are only using it as a "solo" machine, then there's no point of the super Amazon charges, just get a $79 a month VPS and live happy.
Quote:
This is an unfair comparison because you're doing things (ie using RDS) with EC2 that you aren't doing with your VPS.
No wasn't using RDS on those.
Quote:
In my case, IO charges are less than 5% of my monthly bill. I don't use RDS, but do have my root volumes mounted from EBS.
That's the thing, different apps different needs.
Quote:
It's easy enough to build a "cloud scalable" app from the start if you follow a few basic design principles - ie REST, and not using a relational DB.
Well again, define "easy".
We need a RDB, so there's no easy way out. And even if you dont need one and just need SimpleDB it ain't an easy task.
We've got IT specialists with 15+ years experience, and I didnt see them walking in the park with it :/
Sure,if you are super good, then yeah, everything is easy
Quote:
EC2 *is* "ready to go". You don't have to deal with things like RDS and load balancing at the start if you don't want to, but they're there once you need them.
Yup but EC2 it's just a virtual machine, you can have plenty of them in your bedroom too
The complicated task is not to run an EC2, but it's to write a fast shell script that copies your app on your EC2 in less than 30 secs or so, sure you can have snapshots on EBS but again, not easy or "ready to go".
I think AWS has improved drastically from the sketchy beginnings, and it's probably the best service out there, but still, there are plenty of things that could be more "cloud" ready, and the costs are still too high.
This is not what I've seen, you get charged for I/O anyway if you are accessing the disk. And we did :/
You only get charged for IO when using EBS (Elastic block storage). If you use the local hard drive in each EC2 instance as the boot/root device instead, you can avoid this cost.
RDS is also backed by EBS, which is why you get charged for IO when using it.
You only get charged for IO when using EBS (Elastic block storage). If you use the local hard drive in each EC2 instance as the boot/root device instead, you can avoid this cost.
RDS is also backed by EBS, which is why you get charged for IO when using it.
Ah got ya, the problem in this case is that the EC2 instance's HD it's way too small for any serious database size. :/
There are a lot of new providers getting into the mix these days. You could check out godaddy's new VPS solution -- it's very cheap.
That said I/O is a very typical problem in the world of VPS hosting. Most of the big players are walking the line of overcommitment to the point that I/O can at times be almost unusable.
Why not try a dedicated server? Much better. Windows is also a resource hog, if you're on a node with other Windows VPS servers then your server is probably going to be slow.
Hi i can suggest a hosting company whose name is Tucktail.com . here there is a service called "Virtual Dedicated Server" . this service is suitable for you..and you can find all of your requirements here..
Good vps hosting?
Linear Mode
