Results 1 to 25 of 28
-
10-17-2006, 05:28 AM #1Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 286
The most reliable web hosting companies in the world?
I was curious which web hosting companies are considered the most reliable in the world.
It would be interesting to see a discussion about this. If price is no issue, which companies deliver rock-solid uptime and performance?Pingdom - Be the first to know when your site is down
Pingdom Tools - Site load test, DNS test, ping and traceroute.
-
10-17-2006, 05:53 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Australia - NSW
- Posts
- 1,053
Originally Posted by Pingdom
www.crucialp.com (also had experience)
www.smartyhost.com.au (I've had experience, in 2000)
I've heard good things about pair. Good things to say about crucialp and SH.
I have lots to list, but they're all Aussie hosts, except for crucialp.Recommended: Stablehost, Hivelocity, Fused
-
10-17-2006, 06:16 AM #3Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Posts
- 5
I think hostultra is very reliable, I have never had any problems with them
Kind Regards,
John Wood
-
10-17-2006, 06:27 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Australia - NSW
- Posts
- 1,053
Originally Posted by JDWcomputing
Time hosted with them?Recommended: Stablehost, Hivelocity, Fused
-
10-17-2006, 07:58 AM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Richmond, VA
- Posts
- 3,119
Timehost would be another.
Daniel B., CEO - Bezoka.com and Ungigs.com
Hosting Solutions Optimized for: WordPress • Joomla • OpenCart • Moodle
Data Centers in: Chicago (US), London (UK), Sydney (AU), Sofia (BG), Pori (FI)
Email Daniel directly: ceo [at] bezoka.com
-
10-17-2006, 08:39 AM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 862
If a host doesn't have FULLY redundant setup, I don't think it's worth considering it to be "the most reliable".
I guess the most reliable host should have realtime failover systems at multiple locations (or even continents).
And it should cost a lot.
But I think there is a market for ultra reliable hosts for small to mid size businesses,
or even for personal sites.
Maybe it's possible to create relatively low cost ultra reliable host using LVS or other HA system
+ iscasi or other technology to achieve realtime replication at different locations
without sacrificing the performance too much.Last edited by extras; 10-17-2006 at 08:43 AM.
-
10-17-2006, 09:04 AM #7Away
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 5,278
Shared hosting:
www.pair.com
www.segpub.com
www.laughingsquid.net
Dedicated Hosting:
www.rackspace.com
www.datapipe.com
-
10-24-2006, 11:06 AM #8Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 286
Sorry for being so late with following up this thread.
Thanks for all the replies. Interesting. I was a bit surprised that more people didn't mention Rackspace, as they have a pretty solid reputation. Pair seem to be pretty popular.
Small aside: Of course no provider can guarantee 100% uptime. Murphy's Law will never that happen... At least not in the long run. There's a difference between providing 100% uptime and guaranteeing 100% uptime. But it's nice that they're trying.Pingdom - Be the first to know when your site is down
Pingdom Tools - Site load test, DNS test, ping and traceroute.
-
10-24-2006, 11:41 AM #9Newbie
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 8
My vote goes to Verio for quality webhosting. All of their hosting servers have drive redundancy, onsite backups and off-site backups. They're also their own tier 1 provider. This thread has made me curious though. Are there any independent publications that have attempted to answer this question?
-
10-25-2006, 09:33 AM #10Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 286
Originally Posted by MLaude
To me, "reliability" is also a matter of how companies deal with incidents once they happen (because they WILL happen sooner or later). Are they open with their customers? Do they try to hide it? How quickly do they solve the problem(s)? Etc, etc. Customer care is also a part of being considered reliable.Pingdom - Be the first to know when your site is down
Pingdom Tools - Site load test, DNS test, ping and traceroute.
-
10-25-2006, 05:32 PM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 76
The best host in the world is:
{insert name of my hosting company or company i resell for}
-
10-25-2006, 08:07 PM #12Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 72
I think the Best Companies for Dedicated Hosting are
https://www.theplanet.com/
http://www.ev1servers.net/
http://www.layeredtech.com/
-
10-25-2006, 09:12 PM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- it seems on line ;)
- Posts
- 933
I wonder how realiability could be rated out of standards wordly accepted . . .
Gonzalo
"To venture is to risk one's life; not to venture is to lose one's reason to live"
-
10-25-2006, 10:29 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 4,076
Originally Posted by freeflyer
guess it was just asked out of curiosity or fun.
People desire standards and metrics that are credible and can withstand dispute,
after all. And they have different ones at that.
Anyone care to take the challenge?
-
10-31-2006, 07:09 AM #15Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 286
Originally Posted by Dave Zan
I wanted to get a feel for what the perceived quality of these companies are, and which ones would pop up. Of course, to have a large number of objective metrics would be very interesting.
I have to second Dave Zan: Any suggestions for an objective list of metrics and criteria that could be used to rank web hosting companies? Would be interesting to see what would be considered most important.Pingdom - Be the first to know when your site is down
Pingdom Tools - Site load test, DNS test, ping and traceroute.
-
10-31-2006, 07:58 AM #16Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- UK - Midlands
- Posts
- 195
Pingdom can I ask why I would use Pingdom's uptime checker and not SiteUpTime's?
I would like to test your service but 30 days isn't long enough to warrant anything. Not having a go or anything just that our servers have a drop out maybe once every 4 months, if that.It's a Savage Universe out there!
Savage Hosting Ltd - CLS | MCP | ITIL | PRINCE2 | Nerd
-
10-31-2006, 08:43 AM #17Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 286
Originally Posted by SH-Giles
First of all, things like these are usually in the eye of the beholder. Try out both and see which you like best. We have 5 developers working full time on Pingdom, so we will be adding new and better features every month.
That said, the point of our trial is more so you can check out the control panel, maybe try out the quality of our support, etc. I'm sure you can simulate downtime by entering a check to an invalid page or URL (or if you're drastic, pull the plug on a test machine, if you have one you can spare).
In the end, however, it comes down to preference. You should try both.Pingdom - Be the first to know when your site is down
Pingdom Tools - Site load test, DNS test, ping and traceroute.
-
10-31-2006, 08:47 AM #18Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- UK - Midlands
- Posts
- 195
Fair enough thanks
It's a Savage Universe out there!
Savage Hosting Ltd - CLS | MCP | ITIL | PRINCE2 | Nerd
-
11-12-2006, 07:44 PM #19Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 48
I was thinking about this issue of reliability and price, and it seems there is probably some rough graphical representaion that could be used to visualize the relationship. For example, if the reliability of various hosts could be assessed (say by their average percentage uptime), and these figures were then plotted against the price of the various services, then I would expect that some curve or straight line might result.
We would probably find that as the reliabilty goes up, then so does the price. I only mention this because I often see forum posts that give the reader the impression that great hosting can be had at the cheapest rates. While I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, I would suggest the scientific approach would tend to demonstrate that it is more logical to expect reliability to be in some way directly linked to price. Coming up with a suitable forumla would solve a lot of arguments.
-
11-12-2006, 07:50 PM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 9,264
homer2,
If only it were that easy. With the sheer number of things being compared (bandwidth providers, server hardware brand, operating systems, even company's management would play a role) I don't think it would be possible to graph.
Even ratings are almost near impossible to graph: You may consider one company good while another person considers it crap so even the lines between 'good and bad' are blurred.
People just have to do their research upfront and pray they land on a good host these days: Hopping around is almost part of the consumer's process.
-
11-12-2006, 07:52 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- USA
- Posts
- 884
If price is not an issue and this is for dedicated servers, then Rack SPace and Navi Site are the best by far.
GS RichCopy 360 Enterprise - Voted #1 for data migration and replication in terms of performance and features. Replicate data across between servers in the same network, WAN, or even across the internet - Many customer call it RSync for Windows
-
11-12-2006, 09:44 PM #22Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 48
Yes, you are right David. I was being a little simplistic in my approach, but the point I was trying to make is that it would be better if a list of main features of hosting could be mapped in some more straightforward way, and then there would be less of this: "company A is better than company B" sort of argument, when we know for sure the performance factors are not being compared fairly at all. In fact it would be better if we just noted the negative points, then at least the worst of the bunch could be eliminated. It seems it is a minefield out there for anyone trying to find the "perfect" host.
-
11-13-2006, 01:13 AM #23Newbie
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Posts
- 18
I am using IMhosted.com and they are brillient
-
11-13-2006, 07:11 AM #24Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- Argentina
- Posts
- 244
-
11-13-2006, 09:31 AM #25Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 862
I think I saw Mosso showing 100% uptime SLA.
If we base the measurement of "reliability" on SLA, it can't go higher than that.
(We can add the higher compensation rate in the comparison, though).
And monitoring services can't be truly trusted, since some hosts turn it off during regular maintenance.
If we really want to compare the reliability of many hosts, we need to monitor them by ourselves, with same method, same interval, etc.
I mean, we need to setup some sort of collective monitoring projects using a bit of resource from each participating member.
Then, we can claim to have open and reliable measurement of "reliability", which can't be cheated/influenced by hosts.
Otherwise, saying "so and so host is the most reliable one in the world" is meaningless.
It's absurd. It will be like a stupid but bloody religious war.