Which one in the subject do you like or dislike?

I've narrowed it down to these for various reasons. I want shell access, perl, php, JSP would be nice. Customer service is also important.

HostingMatters has superb service and excellent reliability. I currently host four domains with them.

If you search for them you will see my experiences with them during the first week and the first quarter I was with them. It was fantastic!

While I have never used any of them, I recommend VenturesOnline and HostingMatters. I know several resellers of those two companies and the feedback from them are both companies are great!.

I would recommend Hosting Matters from that list, of course. Support is superb. I don't think they have JSP right now, but I know they have the rest.

Thanks for the replies so far.

But I've only read good things about these companies... does anyone have any dirt? If not, I'll need a 5-sided coin for this. Of course, it's also nice to hear the good stuff too.

And yes, I have done searches in these forums.

Sorry. I don't know any bad news about any of them. You need a hat so you can pull a name out of it.

:emlaugh:

I'll need a 5-sided coin for this


Can you tell me where to find a 5-sided coin ? Also, what shape is that in ? :D :D

I forgot to mention that I also want to use mySQL... that puts pair.com out of the running because it appears you can only get mysql for the relatively expensive (by my standards) $29/mo account.

So now I only need a 4-sided coin (shaped like a 3-sided pyramid I imagine).

Originally posted by Peeps
Sorry. I don't know any bad news about any of them. You need a hat so you can pull a name out of it.

:emlaugh:
When a problem exist, I told HM, they fix in 10min...
Bad news become good news...;)

Originally posted by Head
I forgot to mention that I also want to use mySQL... that puts pair.com out of the running because it appears you can only get mysql for the relatively expensive (by my standards) $29/mo account.

We run MySQL on a pool of more than two dozen dedicated servers in order to ensure better performance and manageability. The Web servers should only be doing Web service. This might explain the price differential, but as you said, your standards are different, and I won't question that.

Thanks,
Kevin

ps Speaking for pair this time.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion and preferences for system configuration.

I rather like the idea of having services like MySQL and mail available on the hosting server itself, as it immediately solves the scalability problem and also compartmentalizes outages. (i.e. if that server goes down, only clients on that server go down. The alternative is to have client sites on many multiple servers go down if a dedicated MySQL server fails.) It can also have mild security benefits, like being able to disable networking on MySQL entirely since you can connect via the local socket. As for performance issues - well, if you're allowing CGI scripts to run on a box, those will consume far more resources than a MySQL server process.

Again, just a matter of opinion. Let the user choose which approach they prefer.

Originally posted by Travis
I suppose it's a matter of opinion and preferences for system configuration.

I rather like the idea of having services like MySQL and mail available on the hosting server itself, as it immediately solves the scalability problem and also compartmentalizes outages. (i.e. if that server goes down, only clients on that server go down. The alternative is to have client sites on many multiple servers go down if a dedicated MySQL server fails.) It can also have mild security benefits, like being able to disable networking on MySQL entirely since you can connect via the local socket. As for performance issues - well, if you're allowing CGI scripts to run on a box, those will consume far more resources than a MySQL server process.

Again, just a matter of opinion. Let the user choose which approach they prefer.

Points taken, except that the user doesn't get to choose, except by picking different providers.

There are a few more points I can think of. The Web servers aren't giving up a sizeable chunk of RAM for the daemon, which might only be used by one or two accounts on each server anyhow. If the MySQL daemon gets really busy, it will only affect performance of other MySQL users, not the other Web sites that happen to be on the offender's server. It's easier to monitor and upgrade and maintain 28 MySQL servers than 400 of them. The MySQL servers can be configured in ways you wouldn't normally configure Web servers (for example, different resource limits, different kernel options, a RAM disk for rotating logs).

Managing CGI load is a different topic altogether. But we are often misunderstood and criticized on that point, too. Rather than run a long thread about pros and cons of pair, which might be questionable under WHT rules anyhow, I'll just bow out now :)

Thanks,
Kevin

Originally posted by Travis
I suppose it's a matter of opinion and preferences for system configuration.

...

Again, just a matter of opinion. Let the user choose which approach they prefer.

That's what it comes down to for me. Cost is a factor since I'm just a personal user and the mySQL server on the web-server approach seems to save me some money. I realize this could affect performance but that's the tradeoff I'm willing to make for a small (to begin with) website.

It seems the choice between providers of this caliber comes down to intangibles. I suspect I won't be dissappointed with any of them but I probably have to decide which company will be best for me at various levels. Maybe I need to start 4 websites, one on each. javascript:smilie(';)')

I might as well throw in my two cents. I am a former Pair customer and I found their service to be excellent. My only complaint, which is what has come up in this thread, is that they are more expensive than some other providers if you need a database and custom cgi. Since my site is only a hobby I switched to a provider that offers me more development tools (as well as less transfer) for less money.

Pair is a pleasure to deal with and I would recommend them to people who have needs that are met by Pair's packages.

-Joe

Right now my sites on VO are doing really good. Uptime so far has been good, and no mySQL or Apache problems (for me at least). I'd suggest VO.

I should also chime in here... as evidenced by sigma's thoughtful contributions, pair is an excellent provider. I had an account with them in the distant past, and it worked well. They seem to be one of the very few large hosts out there that have a solid grasp on technical quality.

After a prolonged period of hellacious research I chose VenturesOnline and have to say that the support is incredibly good. Uptime has been excellent and they've been very responsive to issues that come up typically from time to time. I've been with them for probably about 6 months... superb.

I've heard good things about hostingmatters but I think it's quite a bit more pricey.

I've set up a couple of sites with VO as well and plan to move another large one over. They're great. Service is great. Features are great. Uptime is great. Good luck!

I finally narrowed my choice down to 3:
qwk, hostmatters and venturesonline

All 3 seem to have a great combination of service and value (bang for the buck). I don't think you could go terribly wrong with any of these companies. In fact, I almost felt bad about not picking the other two (they were all 3 very responsive to my questions).

From these three I chose the one that had servers in my backyard just to support the local guys (not that it really matters for service but I like to pick local guys when I can). In the future, if/when I get another site, I will probably try one of the others just so that I can compare.

But for now, I am with <drum roll/>... venturesonline. So far the experience has been quite good. The account was accessible within about 15 minutes as advertised and the cpanel3 utility makes things easy to administer from afar.

Thanks to all for the opinions. It helps to know that there are other satisfied customers before making the leap.