Thank you Stuart! :)Quote:
Well done speedysparrow another good review.
Printable View
Thank you Stuart! :)Quote:
Well done speedysparrow another good review.
It's like you're saying the SpeedySparrow service is only good because they're using CloudFlare. I don't think it matters what the host uses. The host can use whatever they like to get the best service possible.
There is nothing wrong with doing that.
Personally, I choose not to use CloudFlare due to the number of posts I've seen about issues with IPs, users being redirected to CloudFlare pages instead of the proper website, website taking ages to load when using CloudFlare plugin, CloudFlare servers going down or network issues causing sites to go down or not respond. Also there is no UK location yet either.
It's just adding more point of failures to have to worry about, IMO.
I do think CloudLinux is excellent though.
Cloudflare is not a preferred cloud solution of the moment, it has its own manufacturing demerits.
Something like ONapp will be the best cloud solution to go:)
cloudlinux however has nothing to do with the cloud, its just another linux distro, with a misleading name cloud
CloudFlare is not compatible to the other services you have mentioned due to the fact that it is nothing alike the others.
@fiend Julian said he tested it with and without CloudFlare and it SS still performed well without it. That's what matters.
Most shared hosting can't handle being dugg, no matter if LiteSpeed is utilized or not. You would jeopardize the stability of the server you are on from the heavy load caused by the increased traffic, most likely leading in suspension. If CloudLinux is used on the server, you site would most likely crawl to a screeching halt.Quote:
now digg?... or whatever burst of traffic you might get, i think you are kinda selling speedysparrow and a lot of hosts short, you would be surprised how many would be able to handle it, including speedysparrow (litespeed is a beast), so im not too sure about your fears of unlikely future failures...
This doesn't take away from the fact that it is still an opinion.Quote:
and just encase you don't know, an opinion can be based on fact! surprise fact
I know what it is and is nothing like CloudFlare, but CloudLinux was mentioned a few times so thought I'd give my +1.
I have found using a dedicated server + CloudLinux to offer Shared hosting accounts gives you better uptime than a lot of those providers offering a so-called true Cloud setup.
Even Cloud has a single point of failure.
I prefer to use a dedicated server (dedicated resources) with a good provider that also offers excellent network along with CloudLinux.
CloudLinux alone makes a server used for Shared hosting a lot more stable. Uptime/performance is much better for Shared accounts when the provider is using CloudLinux.
Some users, web designers especially actually get annoyed by caching systems as they have to keep reloading the page to get new content, etc. Using a caching system benefits the host (reduces CPU/memory usage) more than the user.
I'd prefer to use a host that doesn't use caching. As long as good hardware is being used and the specs are good processor, memory, harddrive wise all is good.
Thank you HostXNow for the input.
I appreciate your websites are fast loading with the cheapest solution.
We do not enable caching by default, the user has the choice to use CloudFlare but it is not something we push everyone to use.Quote:
I'd prefer to use a host that doesn't use caching. As long as good hardware is being used and the specs are good processor, memory, harddrive wise all is good.
If a customer wishes to use a caching mechanism that is entirely up to them.
Other than that, sure there are countless points of fail on any service including your own traditional hosting setup. The thing about Cloud is that is has more of a fail-over protection system in place to where more traditional systems do not.
Sure right not Cloud Hosting is still developing and may not suit every ones needs or purpose though it can be beneficial in so many other ways, we chose Cloud based on it's abilities in facts of (up-time, performance, fail-over, automation, but for us I do like the high availability) that comes with a true cloud setup - not ones that actually resell from another provider.
I suppose for each individual aspects change, traditional vs cloud now that is a discussion to talk about. :P
Since this thread was derailed by clouds, let's close it up.