Results 1 to 20 of 20
-
02-08-2014, 10:26 AM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 96
Liquid Web vs Site 5 Vs Servint: Which is best?
Just made my hosting choice even harder....by discovering another host I am interested in.
I am having a tough choice between liquidweb, Site5 and Servint for a VPS host?
Of these three, can anyone recommend which of these 3 hosts is the best?
I like Servint's new Solid Fire VPS plans but the reviews are a bit shaky at times and they don't seem to support litespeed, which is what i need. They said they do their best with it.
Site5 is highly attractive and is one that I am leaning towards but some reviews as of late don't seem 100 percent reassuring.
Liquid Web seems to be good and i love that they have phone support.
Edit: Liquid web concerns me a bit because i asked about purchasing my own litespeed licence(they want 35 for a licence that is a bit cheaper if i brought my own) and they said my personal licence wouldn't fall under their FUlly managed support(the LW based licence would though) and they'd give it a best effort. Which sort of confuses me...as it shouldn't matter where it is brought from.
I just don't know. Please help if you have any feedback on these companies.Last edited by Dauntless; 02-08-2014 at 10:40 AM.
-
02-08-2014, 10:29 AM #2Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- /dev/null
- Posts
- 469
what is your budget and what is your location ?
-
02-08-2014, 10:31 AM #3Cloud Ninja
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Location
- /
- Posts
- 1,467
From my opinion liquid web is good. You can choose them.
█ AdroitSSD LLC - Incredible™ Hosting Platform| In Business Since 2012 | 24/7 Real Support
█ Pure SSD Hosting - 90 Days Moneyback Guarantee! | LiteSpeed + LSCache | 99.95% Uptime | CloudLinux
█ SSD KVM VPS - INTENSE™ DDOS Protection |1 Gbit port Speed | LiteSpeed & Softaculous License
-
02-08-2014, 10:42 AM #4Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 96
-
02-08-2014, 11:21 AM #5Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- /dev/null
- Posts
- 469
-
02-08-2014, 11:25 AM #6Web Host Reviewer
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Kepler 62f
- Posts
- 16,703
VPS? Dedicated?
LiquidWeb is a premium host.
Site5 is excellent, yes, but LiquidWeb is better. (And it costs more.)|| Need a good host?
|| See my Suggested Hosts List || Editorial: EIG/Site5/Arvixe/Hostgator Alternatives
||
-
06-24-2014, 09:10 PM #7New Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1
Hi there,
Site5 is fine, LiquidWeb is good but pricey [then again I haven't compared them lately to Servint]
But Servint - best hosting company I have been with in the last 16 yrs!
Been with them for the last 6 yrs.
Cheers,
E.
-
06-24-2014, 09:12 PM #8How Can I Help You Today?
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- Langley, BC
- Posts
- 2,045
██ We Have Generated Over 7 Million cPanel Backups Come Dance Together With Us Y'all!
██ Offer Your Own Backup Hosting Service - SiteAutoBackup.Com (Private Label / WHMCS Ready)
██ WebHostingBusinessBook.Com | YouTube.com/WebHostingTutorial | NowOpenOnline.Com
-
06-25-2014, 01:15 PM #9Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 1,700
Thread moved: Web Hosting -> VPS Hosting forum
-
09-21-2014, 10:25 AM #10Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 85
I would certainly not recommend liquidweb they are more interested in their money than their customers.
-
09-21-2014, 02:01 PM #11Managed Services Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Posts
- 4,124
Do keep in mind that Site5 does not provider root access to your managed VPS (if that is what you are looking at) under any circumstances, I a sure they do this in the best interest of their clients, but it is a limitation nevertheless.
█ Kushal || Host4Geeks || Operating Fully Owned Infrastructure out of 4 Global Datacenters US / UK / India
█ Reseller Hosting - Pure SSD | Nginx + LSAPI | Let's Encrypt | WHMCS or Blesta | DDoS Protection| 24x7 Support
█ Fully Managed SSD VPS - cPanel /WHM | Softaculous | Let's Encrypt | DDoS Protection | Proactive Monitoring | Server Hardening
█ Datacenters - Los Angeles, CA | Lenoir, NC | London, UK |Pune, India
-
09-21-2014, 03:39 PM #12Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Posts
- 238
LiquidWeb is really good, I think that is the best choice for you. Howeaver, consider also WiredTree, it's another Premium Hosting.
Web Hosting Magazine | Italian site on the Hosting, Domains, VPS & Server
-
09-21-2014, 05:48 PM #13Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 96
I tried all 3
But i am presently with Big Scoots now.
-
09-21-2014, 07:49 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2011
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 730
█ BigScoots.com - 98% of Clients Stay With Us Forever
█ Offering Fully Managed Shared & Reseller Hosting
█ Specializing in Managed WordPress, VPS & Dedicated Hosting
█ Opened 2010 & 100% Positively Reviewed Since | 100% Network Uptime
-
09-22-2014, 01:20 PM #15Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Posts
- 207
If you're buying fully managed hosting, this is the only scenario that you should accept. Otherwise (if your provider gives you root) what are they expecting you to do with it, and how will they understand clearly how everything is configured / installed when it comes to important issues like troubleshooting or security patching etc.
You don't want something to go unpatched or get misconfigured by your provider simply because they don't know what you've got installed (or how you've got it configured). If you're buying managed, let your provider manage!
I guess it would help the OP to know your thoughts on each + why you ended up leaving them and using Big Scoots instead...UK, Chicago, & Singapore Fully Managed Plesk VPS
UK, Arizona & Singapore Jelastic Java, PHP & Ruby PaaS
Comprehensive SLAs, backups, full SSD, rebootless kernel updates.
Experienced managed hosting provider since 2001. True 24x7 Support & Server Management
-
09-22-2014, 01:27 PM #16Managed Services Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Posts
- 4,124
I would disagree, just giving the end user root access does not necessarily mean they will use it unless they are sure about it. It is acceptable to *not provide* root access by default but provide on request. But completely denying root access, no, never.
There are several occasions when a non-sysadmin may need or use root access, as a provider not only it off-loads some minor tasks for us but from a customer point of view it allows him to be not dependent on his provider for *everything* and not open tickets for each and every issue.
For people who are not comfortable using it, will not.█ Kushal || Host4Geeks || Operating Fully Owned Infrastructure out of 4 Global Datacenters US / UK / India
█ Reseller Hosting - Pure SSD | Nginx + LSAPI | Let's Encrypt | WHMCS or Blesta | DDoS Protection| 24x7 Support
█ Fully Managed SSD VPS - cPanel /WHM | Softaculous | Let's Encrypt | DDoS Protection | Proactive Monitoring | Server Hardening
█ Datacenters - Los Angeles, CA | Lenoir, NC | London, UK |Pune, India
-
09-22-2014, 01:40 PM #17Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Posts
- 207
Such as? There are plenty of things our customers can do using "user level" SSH. Maybe you're thinking of those?
Root access is only needed for configuration changes or software install/update. These are the things the provider should do if the server is fully managed. Any other way is dangerous to the long term stability and security of the server (which is the primary reason to buy a fully managed server - i.e. because you're hosting something important and downtime costs money etc.).
This is the primary reason that many "managed" hosting providers give root access to their clients. The other is clients who really want unmanaged servers with some hand holding (in which case it's better and cheaper to buy an unmanaged server, and get some occasional paid support assistance if that's what you need).
If root access is a big issue for you (as a customer), save yourself headaches and buy an unmanaged (self-managed) server instead!
Self-service is good, but it doesn't have to be at the expense of system stability and security. There are ways to provide access to common things that customers require access to change or do without root access, and so those things can still be handled without a ticket.
However if opening tickets is a hardship (either because of process, or response quality / delays), it probably suggests you're hosting with the wrong provider. These are things that are 'acceptable' when buying $10/year shared hosting, but if you're paying for decent quality fully managed server hosting (VPS or dedicated / cluster etc.) you should have a support team that you can depend on and enjoy working with. The support team should be an extension of your own in-house capabilities (IT team, developers - whatever applies).UK, Chicago, & Singapore Fully Managed Plesk VPS
UK, Arizona & Singapore Jelastic Java, PHP & Ruby PaaS
Comprehensive SLAs, backups, full SSD, rebootless kernel updates.
Experienced managed hosting provider since 2001. True 24x7 Support & Server Management
-
09-22-2014, 01:53 PM #18Managed Services Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Posts
- 4,124
Nope, I am fairly sure about what I am talking about be it albeit related to configuration changes but a lot of our clients are experienced enough to do those and prefer doing it themselves. Simple issues such as installation of the CloudFlare Plugin or Softaculous, for which they follow the documentation and is pretty straight forward and if someone doesn't want to they just request the provider to do it. You're assuming, just because the end user has root access, he would do things he is not sure about, which as far as I have seen is not the case.
This is the primary reason that many "managed" hosting providers give root access to their clients. The other is clients who really want unmanaged servers with some hand holding (in which case it's better and cheaper to buy an unmanaged server, and get some occasional paid support assistance if that's what you need).
You're pretty much considering that *because* your customer has root access, he is going to go in and do things he is not sure about. We see customers using our managed services, who range from non-geeky and simple bloggers, who do not even care about what SSH is, to the average geek, who knows his way and can follow tutorials to do basic stuff but prefer to have everything managed and taken care of and then there's the decent geek who just doesn't have the time to manage another server in his life.
I do not see how giving root access is compromising on stability and security of the server. It's not like, just because you are giving root access they no longer get the managed levels of service you as a provider may offer, that is always there, it's about having that option and flexibility. If you do not want to use, just don't.█ Kushal || Host4Geeks || Operating Fully Owned Infrastructure out of 4 Global Datacenters US / UK / India
█ Reseller Hosting - Pure SSD | Nginx + LSAPI | Let's Encrypt | WHMCS or Blesta | DDoS Protection| 24x7 Support
█ Fully Managed SSD VPS - cPanel /WHM | Softaculous | Let's Encrypt | DDoS Protection | Proactive Monitoring | Server Hardening
█ Datacenters - Los Angeles, CA | Lenoir, NC | London, UK |Pune, India
-
09-23-2014, 05:57 AM #19Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Posts
- 207
This isn't the point at all. I completely understand that most clients are sensible enough to know the limits of their own expertise; when they should attempt something themselves vs. when they need help from someone more knowledgeable / experienced.
The problem is that however 'expert' the customer is (or even their hired help for the day), if the provider installed and configured everything up to this point it means the customer has no idea what unseen consequences of their actions might be. Maybe when they apply that configuration change they simultaneously break something else, or maybe that installation package conflicts with something already installed.
The multiple sysadmins phenomenon that you create in this case is problematic. Where problems are avoided it arises through chance (e.g. customer doesn't call upon the help of their provider to do / troubleshoot anything, or the provider really isn't so proactive about keeping things patched etc. in the first place) rather than by design.
Multiple sysadmins can only work if all of the changes are thoroughly documented, and each sysadmin has a good background of the system's configuration / architecture from the outset. This could only happen if there's a shared runbook maintained by both sides (provider and customer). I'm not aware of a managed provider that works this way; if there is one it might work effectively (though still a question of somehow maintaining adequate quality over that shared documentation to ensure it's clearly understandable by all parties).
In general that sort of response speed would be too slow for a managed service support team.
As I mentioned before, the problem can arise in 2 different ways. Customer installs / configures some software (/version):
- which is later found vulnerable to an exploit; provider is aware of the vulnerability but does not patch on this server because the software is not known to be installed (or configured in a vulnerable way) here
- provider performs pro-active patching / updates (potentially in response to a vulnerability identified elsewhere in the system), and inadvertently resets customised configuration or creates a conflict
These sort of issues can easily arise in relation to additional Apache modules, proxies/caches, custom interpreters etc. which are exactly the sort of things you mentioned.
Additionally there is a support issue. Imagine that there is an outage on the server in the middle of the night. The 1 technical person in the organisation who knows how this is all supposed to be configured is on holiday or asleep etc. so cannot be reached. The provider needs to get that site/server back up on their own without a clue how it was configured before; the only person they can reach at that time on the customer's side is the business owner who is not technical at all.
How is the provider supposed to provide a resolution in that kind of scenario? For the sake of potentially saving some minutes via some 'DIY' admin at a previous time, the business is now offline for (at best) a number of hours.
Alternatively, let your provider manage your server (as you pay them to do), and this issue is avoided completely (ideally), or else easily and quickly resolvable by the provider without involving anyone at the customer's side. (of course, the provider's monitoring should detect the presence of the issue in the first place, and their 24x7 team should be on top of it before you could even think of opening a report).
As above, it isn't about limiting technical flexibility (though that may be the case at some providers; YMMV). It's about setting systems and processes up so that the worst case scenarios can be handled effectively and in a timely manner - and also maintaining a high standard of security (so critical vulnerabilities do not go unpatched). I think everybody buying a fully managed server has these aims and objectives primary before anything else (if those things are unimportant to them, the budget option of an unmanaged server is much more logical). That being the case, why put those things in jeopardy on the pretence of added flexibility?UK, Chicago, & Singapore Fully Managed Plesk VPS
UK, Arizona & Singapore Jelastic Java, PHP & Ruby PaaS
Comprehensive SLAs, backups, full SSD, rebootless kernel updates.
Experienced managed hosting provider since 2001. True 24x7 Support & Server Management
-
09-23-2014, 10:15 AM #20Newbie
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Posts
- 13
I have been using Site5 Cloud mainly because of low cost pricing model. Their service/support/infra is more or less satisfactory.
Similar Threads
-
Web Hosting Talk is now Powered By Liquid Web
By SoftWareRevue in forum WHT Announcements, Feedback and QuestionsReplies: 109Last Post: 06-12-2010, 05:08 PM -
Liquid Web can be cool liquid
By SoftWareRevue in forum Web Hosting LoungeReplies: 18Last Post: 08-23-2009, 05:31 AM -
liquid web
By nowanda in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 5Last Post: 05-26-2006, 07:04 AM -
Fastservers, GNAX, or Liquid Web for large-scale site?
By yd77 in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 27Last Post: 05-04-2005, 01:55 AM -
Liquid Web, Servint, Powervps...Who is the fastest?
By chopin2256 in forum VPS HostingReplies: 16Last Post: 04-30-2005, 02:24 PM