4 ms·

What do you recommend for hosting?

autokad 12y ago
i cant answer that, its highly dependent on your own needs. I would love others to weigh in, correct me, add but I'm assuming not your own infrastructure, which is a valid option : for a small webpage/server, perhaps linode or digital ocean. I find heroku nice for free hosting, but they are a bit pricy for paid services. I do love how easy it is to push code to heroku (especially with ruby on rails). if you never used amazon and only want to use it for a year, their micro instance is free for one year. for large scaling systems and a suite of services, I would suggest AWS. they have so many services it confuses the heck out of me sometimes. if you want low cost high performance, especially for development digital ocean seems better for this. i never used Azure, cant comment on it. Also there was a company that basically rented physical servers at a cheap price, from what I remember they had the best performance per cost that I have seen. Also another obvious consideration is software/applications - some tie in better than others. for instance, I use ArcGIS Server which is VERY easy to deploy on AWS
devonkim 12y ago
I've been looking at vultr alongside a Linode account for development and small website hosting purposes that need a little more customization and server side control than something like a Jekyll blog. AWS S3 is fairly reasonable for hosting small, static sites that get almost no hits besides you maybe ahead of almost everyone because most will charge you for the compute and memory of the web server of the site hosting the content while with it's stripped to transfer and static disk storage, which would be pennies per year for sharing a small collection of pictures with a few friends. I have gigabytes of stuff and it costs me less than a dollar per month on S3. Expensive if you look at Google Drive or OneDrive costs sure, but the utility I get out of it is worth a few dollars per year for me. Also, I like the security I can tweak on my bucketa. With the HA design you tend to need running on AWS for serious operations (AZs out the wazoo with every other feature tacking on a few dollars at a time), you might as well use multiple cloud hosting providers and load balance across them. Obviously this isn't typical practice, but Amazon's lock-in is pretty glaring when looking at one of the best potential aspects of cloud being that of PORTABLE workloads.

i cant answer that, its highly dependent on your own needs. I would love others to weigh in, correct me, add but I'm assuming not your own infrastructure, which is a valid option : for a small webpage/server, perhaps linode or digital ocean. I find heroku nice for free hosting, but they are a bit pricy for paid services. I do love how easy it is to push code to heroku (especially with ruby on rails). if you never used amazon and only want to use it for a year, their micro instance is free for one year. for large scaling systems and a suite of services, I would suggest AWS. they have so many services it confuses the heck out of me sometimes. if you want low cost high performance, especially for development digital ocean seems better for this. i never used Azure, cant comment on it. Also there was a company that basically rented physical servers at a cheap price, from what I remember they had the best performance per cost that I have seen. Also another obvious consideration is software/applications - some tie in better than others. for instance, I use ArcGIS Server which is VERY easy to deploy on AWS

devonkim 12y ago

I've been looking at vultr alongside a Linode account for development and small website hosting purposes that need a little more customization and server side control than something like a Jekyll blog. AWS S3 is fairly reasonable for hosting small, static sites that get almost no hits besides you maybe ahead of almost everyone because most will charge you for the compute and memory of the web server of the site hosting the content while with it's stripped to transfer and static disk storage, which would be pennies per year for sharing a small collection of pictures with a few friends. I have gigabytes of stuff and it costs me less than a dollar per month on S3. Expensive if you look at Google Drive or OneDrive costs sure, but the utility I get out of it is worth a few dollars per year for me. Also, I like the security I can tweak on my bucketa. With the HA design you tend to need running on AWS for serious operations (AZs out the wazoo with every other feature tacking on a few dollars at a time), you might as well use multiple cloud hosting providers and load balance across them. Obviously this isn't typical practice, but Amazon's lock-in is pretty glaring when looking at one of the best potential aspects of cloud being that of PORTABLE workloads.