Hello

Wich is more reliable this for windows?

I think than Mysql, and PostgreSQL, might be unlimited because are gnu/opensource databases. MatrixReseller have as unlimited the Mysql and PostgreSQL databases
Are they reliable?

MatrixReseller.com
Reseller-Center.com
DIYHosting.com

97% of uptime is good or bad? nobody of them, is other, than seem be soso

Thanks

97% uptime could be bad. If you want to be "good" for your clients, look into other possibilites. MySQL is what you might want to take into consideration. MySQL is more used then any other database. I hope you find what you're looking for. Take care

SiteSouth.com (unlimited domains+MSSQL+MySQL)
HostNexus.com (CFM+limited domains+MSSQL+MySQL)

I have account with both,
Recommend them :)

Originally posted by digtox
97% uptime could be bad. If you want to be "good" for your clients, look into other possibilites. MySQL is what you might want to take into consideration. MySQL is more used then any other database. I hope you find what you're looking for. Take care
97% uptime is not bad - it's appalling. ;)

Happy to see you're happy at HN, lmnop. :)

Originally posted by NexDog
97% uptime is not bad - it's appalling. ;)
No kidding.

I'm not sure which host augustino was referring to, with 97% uptime, but it wasn't us.

augustino, at the very least, you should look for a company with 99.5% a uptime guarantee.

Simon

I'm not sure which host augustino was referring to, with 97% uptime, but it wasn't us.

Of course, the hosting with 97% is other very bad, than dont appears in this list

I am looking for some experience of clients with this hostings listing

Thanks

See, here we go again: This thread's been up for... what... five days (at this writing) now? That's certainly enough time for everyone with a recommendation to step up and make it. And, as usual, the same small group of HSphere-based Linux/Windows hosting providers is proffered (which, incidentally, isn't a bad thing and I don't mean to make it sound like it is... after all, if they're so good that everyone keeps recommending them, then more power to 'em!).

But there's one host that seems perfectly fine and easily on par (at least in terms of services and support) with those so-frequently-mentioned companies -- and it's cheaper (as in "less expensive," not "low in quality), to boot! And that company is JodoHost (http://www.jodohost.com).

One of JodoHost's owners, Yash, is a frequent and helpful poster around here -- a poster who, at least from my observation, appears to have garnered a great deal of respect around here from those who've bothered to notice him and his postings. He would certainly appear to know what the heck he's talking about and, from my observation, hasn't mislead anyone around here in anything he's written.

Yet, that same small group of companies -- sans JodoHost -- just keeps getting recommended over and over and over again. Not that they don't deserve it, mind you! I mean, they're good companies, one and all; and they certainly seem to deserve every bit of the sort of loyalty and rave reviews around here that they routinely get. So make no mistake about it: I'm not complaining that those companies are in any way undeserving or even less deserving.

I'm only saying that for some reason, no one seems to want to include JodoHost -- which would at least appear to be in their league -- on their elite little list... this, despite the fact that, conversely, no one around here seems to be complaining about JodoHost. Given both those factors, and despite explanations for it offered in the thread to which I'm about to refer the reader, below, it's weird.

See this thread (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=346378) to better understand what I mean.

Comments, anyone?