Hi Everyone,

We have been hosting on an Alabanza Server and it is soon due for an increase in pricing from $400 to $895 per mo.

Basically we are happy with Alabanza except for the pricing and lack of some options. The control panel is good and makes things a breeze.

Are there any comparable alternatives out there ?. Many we had seen charge big amounts for support calls
and it might end up being more expensive.

What we need is this.

Atleast 256MB memory. :confused:
9+ SCSI h/d.
Support for both IP based and name based hosting
MySQL.
PHP (prefer 4)
JSP (preferable).
Control panel for both master as well as resold
accounts.

We currently host over 110 sites, but of these only 40-50 are active on a daily basis.

Apart from this, we are also planning on getting an NT server with similair h/d ip/name based hosting.. This has to be scaleable to fit our growth.

:beer:

Matra

Try asking Rackspace . they support plesk now and give you the same.

they would also negotiate the price, just give them a call . speak to greg rice.

Rgds
Manish

Hi Matra,

Here are some alternatives you may want to look into:

http://www.weinbar.com
http://www.dtwebworks.com
http://www.pwebtech.com
http://www.superb.net
http://www.serverhost.com

Good luck! :)

Is it possible to have automated virtual site set-up on sign-up in PLESK as in albanza ...?

In PLESK you cant even have resellers .... Please tell the real alternative to albanza except vdi ...?

Just get a server with one of the companies Eric mentioned, then you can buy WebHostManager and CPanel. You'll have the best of both worlds (well, kinda).

Thanks for the replies.

Some more questions..

a) How many domains can be supported by 256 MB RAM on a Linux machine.
Or the converse.. What will be the RAM requirements for 100+ static sites ( low traffic) and about 10 dynamic sites running mysql/php (average of 30-40 visitors per day per site)
And the RAM requirements for an NT server

b) A brief comparison between cobalt Raq3 and RedHat
Linux vis-a-vis reliability, ease of maintenance/usage.

Cheers

:beer:

Plesk is not for hosting companies yet, it has a long long way to go. It is good for someone who administers all the domains. It also has problems with cgi.

after looking at a weinbar server im very impressed with the web panel available.
and the performance was stunning.

(do i seem to be biased toward weinbar??, its just ive had my bad experiences with other hosts and im gonna cry if it all goes titsup.com with weinbar!!)

Which control panel is wienbar using ... is it Cpanel ... I can't find anything on their web site about control panel....

yeah, CPanel
it seems responsive too, im on a T3 as we speak and the performance is good

Originally posted by matra
Thanks for the replies.

Some more questions..

a) How many domains can be supported by 256 MB RAM on a Linux machine.
Or the converse.. What will be the RAM requirements for 100+ static sites ( low traffic) and about 10 dynamic sites running mysql/php (average of 30-40 visitors per day per site)
And the RAM requirements for an NT server

b) A brief comparison between cobalt Raq3 and RedHat
Linux vis-a-vis reliability, ease of maintenance/usage.



It's not as much the number of sites that can be supported but what type of sites are present. If you have only a few sites on a linux box but all of them run very busy UBBs (say), it's not as much the memory as the CPU usage that will be a concern. For the hypothetical you give, any decent CPU of 700+ and 256M RAM should be sufficient. NT servers tend to require more, but that's because IIS requires more overhead for itself before it can allocate to the sites it serves. No matter what the case, more memory is always better.

Since I have no experience with Raqs and how they stack up against RH machines, I'll defer comment on that to someone who does.

I don't think you would want to get into a RaQ. RaQs are great but not for web hosting. They have a lot of security holes and their control panel is not that great for the end user.

I have used RaQs since the beginning and I'm now ready to move all my customers to Linux or Free BSD.

I really think that a RaQ server is ideal for a web designer or a programmer who hosts sites for his/her customers. Web hosting companies that require a decent control panel for their customers cannot rely on a RaQ and you almost always have to telnet into them to administer things because their GUI is not good for anything other than simple administration. :mad:

I agree with Bert. We left Alabanza and went to RaQ's about a year ago. The RaQs are actually fairly robust machines if you use a minimum of 256 mb of ram. However, there are a great many bugs in the automated software and we spend much more time supporting our customers on the RaQs than we did on Alabanza's servers.

Here is an option you should consider.

Get a regular dedicated server with Redhat Linux 6.2, about 512 mb Ram and a 700 mhz processor. Then, go do http://www.vdi.net and purchase their CPanel software. CPanel 'overlays' the server and allows you to add accounts, setup dns, point domains, etc through a very nice interface. Your customers also get a very nice graphical control panel. It comes with PHP 4, MySQL 3.32.23, NEO Mail web based email, and much more.

We have taken this route and are very happy. We will not add any more RaQs to our arsenal. They just require too much tech time!

wscreate:

When you moved, did you leave your customers on your RaQs and then just put the new sign-ups on the Linux boxes, or did you move everyone out of the RaQs?

I am doing the same thing and don't know what to do. I was thinking maybe leave the "cheap" hosting plan customers on the RaQs and then move the more expensive plans to the Linux, but this will probably be a nightmare in terms of setting up support pages for the two platforms and all that.

Any suggestions? :(