My experiences with my current host - QIQ - absolutely confirm that. The servers they were using one person described as "grinding to a halt". Page times of a minute, more, 30 seconds, 20 seconds, frequent times of 10 or 15 seconds....etc etc, for a period of over 2 months. I refer to this at another thread. Very bad indeed. And there also appear to be php and mysql lock problems with the servers they use - first, that they dont have this feature, second, that customers are not given the truthful information about this, and third - I'm not even sure its a technical feature they understand.
But it seems to me if you dont want extensive tech. support or expensive Windows server features, a company should be able to provide basic but reliable hosting at a basic cost. It shouldnt be such a big deal.
But it probably comes down to the integrity and knowledge of the people - are the servers set up correctly, do they actually care about their service so they've got a secure backup system and have allowed for all kinds of contingencies, and so on. Or do they just take advantage of the fact that you can only contact them via email or *maybe* via phone, so they can evade responsibility? You could argue you have to pay for that kind of customer care. But on the other hand, essentially its just about integrity and professionalism, and I dont see why it has to be absent in a budget service.
To pay for even a modest server, a company would need to sell 40 accounts, just to pay for the hardware, nevermind the actually rack space and bandwidth and software licensing costs (CPanel would be at least another 12 accounts sold, for a year) and then staff etc. Do you realistically think that a company can provide a service that isn't highly oversold at those prices? For a member of staff even on a modest wage, you'd need to sell 50 accounts per month to cover it - Now really, tell me do you think that's workable?
The "overselling" normally concerns bandwidth and general usage, like the number of databases you can use etc. They know people will rarely if ever use it all, and in practice - you hear about this at these forums - if you get close you will start to experience problems.
Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a basic but WORKING service: the problem I had with QIQ is for a long period of time they failed to deliver, and couldnt do anything about it because they were using heartinernet servers over which they dont have full control. Without that problem, everything was OK - EXCEPT for the locking issue, the extent of which I only recently discovered at these forums.
Company economics don't interest or concern me - thats for another thread. All this concerns is a basic but WORKING service, ie. one which doens't experience PROBLEMS.
What interests me is consumer experience and reccommendations, on the basis of what I've said here.
Of course company economics come in to it, where do you think the money to pay for decent equipment and clueful staff comes from? Without either of those two, you're not going to get a usable, working, basic service, not for £20 per year for a reseller account - Unless the resources for it are severely limited. My whole point is, £20 per year means they'll have to stuff many many of these reseller accounts on the server, who will then add say 10 accounts each, and wham, a loaded server that crashes often - So you've got no basic service.
theredfox - what's being said is, given the £20 pricetag, you're unlikely to find what you're looking for, and the company economics are the reason why. If you're not interested in knowing why, then you can wait for recommendations at that price (which you probably won't get) or just up the amount of money that you're going to spend (accepting what's being said) and ask again.
I'm not interested in discussing specific company economics. I understand perfectly well that more money = better service - I am not stupid. But I'm not interested in debating the details. I'm a consumer, not a market analyst. This is a consumer's thread.
And its a bit odd, really, conversing with "KDA Web Services" and "Fast2Host" who obviously have a vested interest in this subject.
I'll wait for consumer responses.
Also reiterate though, that in theory if a multiple-use server is properly set up and maintained, anticipating future growth, then it should be OK. If it goes wrong, its arguable whether thats caused by the use to which its put, or the competence, planning and care of the administrators. So you might have company A with xyz setup, and company B with xzy setup, and company B sucks, basically because they are incompetent. You can't reduce it to simple technology; human factors are also an important variable. You could pay £100 or £200 a year and it could be rubbish - despite the superior technology. You could say knowledge and ability also costs money...well, thats just another variable that cant be quantified or adequately correlated with cost. I could also say with complete certainty that *some* companies will be charging large amounts of money which is unjustified. Its not a maths equation; its a human variable.
But even that's slightly tangential.....what I've proposed is, feedback and comments about different budget hosts. Not a debate about economics in relation to performance.
If few people consider £20 hosting, or thereabouts (which is possible), then I am interested in comments about the next price range hosts, say £40/50 a year. Although I'm currently paying actually slightly less than 20, 18 I think it is, basically because my needs are quite modest. But "modest" doesn't include things going *wrong* - basically, when the service isnt being properly delivered.
I'm not saying £20/year hosting isn't feasible (Heck, under our budget brand we offering hosting for £25/year), what I'm saying is that £20/year reseller hosting is not viable, neither are these deals where you see them offering 50GB for £20/year - Well, maybe they are viable, but only because they'll quickly invoke "you're using too many server resources".
theredfox, while hosts might have some vested interests when replying, that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. Fact is a UK host is the one who knows that market best, knows what's possible and what is not so possible.
Although I'm currently paying actually slightly less than 20, 18 I think it is, basically because my needs are quite modest. But "modest" doesn't include things going *wrong* - basically, when the service isnt being properly delivered.
In the hosting industry there are lots of companies that offer things that are impossible to deliver at the prices they use, so they fail when it comes to delivering. It's simply a sad fact of live.
Maybe you should tell us your exact requirements (other than the budget limits I mean), then people would be able to tell you: "This host offers that, I've used it and it is OK." After you do a background check on all the named hosts, you can then go for the one that better fits your needs/budget.
I need a budget package with that kind of spec., but the more difficult "requirement" is a service that actually WORKS. Everyone accepts occasional problems - its the nature of the internet. But the problems they exhibited were wholly unacceptable, both for the severity and the duration. Apart from that its been OK - not briliant, but OK for £17 a year. But now of course, I cant trust them - so today for example, there was a short period when I was experiencing page times of over 1 minute, and timeouts. So is that going to be another serious problem? - who knows. And whether it is, or whether it isn't, the point is you have to regard it in terms of long term expereince over many months.