Does truly scalable, high-performance hosting exist?
I run a number of web sites, and need rock-solid hosting that has the ability to scale for short-term traffic bursts as well as long-term slopes upward in volume.
My current solution is to have a couple of dedicated servers (far more horsepower than I need, but I sleep at night) with outside management of the security and performance. It is not perfect, but, when we settled on it ... it was the best solution available.
Recently, seeing the MediaTemple gs offering got me very excited.
The idea behind it is phenomenal (the scalabilty and burstability, particularly, with someone else managing the security). I have a gs account, but I'm not confident enough to put my database-intensive sites there ... yet (I am hoping). It's not exactly a secret they've been having trouble with database-driven sites, and I'm not willing to consider it as a real solution until they have the kinks of their new system worked out and working flawlessly.
So, here is my question ... I'm looking for a host with the following characteristics:
The ability to scale on demand (having a site shut down due to capacity, ever, is not an option)
My sites should not rely on a single server being up for them to be up (redundency is very important)
Fully managed wrt security and performance
Rock-solid uptime, security and reliability
Extremely fast servers and ping times from within North America
I do *not* want a small company or host. I know there are many who are capable, however, I also know business competence and technical competence do not always reside in the same home ... and I'm not willing to risk my business or any hassles on whether a host is solvent that month. I'm also not looking for a cheap solution ... anyone selling on price instead of quality/uptime/reliability is not an option.
Does such a thing exist?
If so, I'd switch in a heartbeat. If not, I'll keep my current setup until a company (maybe MT???) provides what I'm looking for.
Personally, I would recommend MOSSO for a situation like this. MOSSO has a similar approach to clustered hosting to mediatemple, except theirs is more proven and mature, and has an 80$ larger price tag. Mosso is more stable, probably about as dependable, if not more dependable than a server at it's parent company, Rackspace, because fo the grid. I think that this would be a viable alternative to yor current solution, as it is not only more stable, but less over the top, while still being able to scale. Many people have been concerned that MT doen't give you the full allocated resources (100GB and 1TB), but MOSSO can afford to give you 80GB and 2TB most likely due to it's higher price tag.
Did you check out Layeretech's new product www.thegridlayer.com, What about using Amazon EC2 with their S3 storage?
Unlike other links you showed again and again, that one was very interesting.
It really sounds like scyld type thing (maybe an OEM?).
Possibly, MT is using the same thing, found in the same hosting convention (or expo or whatever).
With this, kiddie cPanels hosts can offer redundant hosting solution, too.
Next step is someone offerinng these technologies for insane DreamHost price.
Sooner or later, someone will do that.
I'm just curious who will offer around $8 package with more than Terabyte BW and 100GB disk with Grid or other redundant solution that can be considered truly HA solution.
(It must to be something a lot more solid/secure than what Servage is currently offering. )
I think this technologies allows host to stop maintaining individual servers.
I mean, they don't need to give name and separate setup and identities to each server.
It's more or less like putting same Knoppix CD and booting same Knoppix on every Box.
If the setup has vertualization on top of the cluster, then booting physical machine with PXE or something, and then loading virtual servers by downloading the images, I guess.
So, there are more steps behind the scene, but the end result would be interchangeable pool of servers acting as host for VPS and each VPS specialized for web server, FTP server, DB server, and so on.
This eliminates the need of nameing servers and treating each of them differently.
(I hope machines would continue to run happily without being called by odd name, though.)
But without some sort of SAN, I'm not sure if they can solve the problem of disk IO .
I'm very curious what they use for the file system (hardwre and software).
I would second mosso. While I have not been digged, the mosso forums have a few examples of people that have been digged/slashdotted and been just fine. Overall I love it because I can manage clients and sites easily.
Go with Rack Space.... they are rock solid and offer %100 uptime.
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, WAS, or even across the internet
Rackspace is great if you can live with the sticker shock. They host a setup for my Tech Corp, only because we have to be on 6 different continents/redundancy but they are rock solid and knowledgable. Pricey though.
That really doesn't have to be a bad thing. As long as the service scales then the email support will be no issue. Especially if the provider answers in a timely maner. In any case, let us know how you like the Grid Layer!