Hi, i am about to get a site up that will allow users to upload, download and stream mp3's. I am fairly 'green' to what is around in regards to hosting options. I would like a host in the west coast of the US as I'm in the east coast of Australia and space and bandwidth are just too expensive over here - i've been told the west coast is the go for reasonable speed back to here. The only part of the site that will be hosted in the US will be the media (mp3s) the rest of the pages will be hosted here in Oz.
I am not sure whether i will need shared of VPS hosting and my budget is pretty tight - $20-30US per month at the moment - however that could grow with future traffic and income. I need a fair bit of disk space (50-100GB) and bandwidth (300GB+) per month. I'd really appreciate some advice on which way to go and if possible some hosts to look at. Thanks in advance!
Obviously no shared hosting plan will accommodate these requirements (unless you fall for the terabytes disk space/bandwidth marketing gimmicks). Your budget should be just enough for a VPS. Look around for deals.
first good luck with ur new website...
about ur choice it seems ur needs not availble nither vps or shared...
as in recent time there is no vps with reasnable price could come with 50 to 100 gb also.... is u want to normal shared u will find it not handy.. so u need a semi dedicated hosting in this kind of hosting they give u an equal share in powerfull server along with other shared websites.. they may host from 20 to 25 on one server and yes it may in ur budget limits.... on the other hand u may go dedicated server with special offers comming from well known companies and may a littlebit above ur budget but the most brelient decession...
Generally, when someone does not know if they need a vps or shared account - it means they don't have the technical ability to manage a VPS. Remember, please, VPS accounts are NOT the same as shared accounts when it comes to what you are expected to handle on your own. Unless you get a managed VPS (more expensive), you're going to be expected to know how to set up things like DNS, security patches, updates to things like the OS/Kernel/etc..
||| 99.999% Uptime SLA!!!
Plenty of space and bandwidth to fit your needs! www.AEIandYou.com - - (WP Friendly - Premium Reseller Hosting and Cheap Dedicated Servers)
Usually hosting companies allow their customers to upgrade to the higher package (VPS, for example) at any time with no additional fee. At the same time, I agree with Timmeh73, that VPS hosting is often not fully supported and you will have to configure VPS by yourself.
Therefore, I would recommend you to chose a shared plan with a hosting company, which allows online streaming. If your website doesn't need more than 10-20 download/upload simultaneous connections, it won't overload the shared server, I suppose. Otherwise, you still will be able to upgrade to VPS. So you won't loose anything.
I think that if you look at the cost of a worth while vps you might as well go with a cheap dedicated. Most of those 9.95 a month vps only have 64meg ram.
That's not exactly true. The reason a more expensive VPS will usually trump a cheap dedicated is because of the quality of hardware you will receive. A powerful set of Dual Core (or even Quad Core) processors will beat out an old Celeron or Pentium 4 any day, even when you have to share their resources with others on the node. Also, most VPS providers use SATA, SCSI, or SAS drives, while the hard drives on most cheap dedicated boxes will generally be IDE. VPS providers additionally use RAID-5's or RAID-10's, which gives you better drive reliability and faster performance.
Plus with a VPS you can back up the entire VE and move it to another node if you have problems, and you can start and stop the VE easily from a web interface. In my experience, a $50 or $75 VPS will beat a comparably priced dedicated server any day.
To the OP: hopefully your users are a trusted bunch, since copyright infringement can get you booted pretty soon. Aside from that, I can't see a reason why a shared host would be totally out of question for you, provided that your resource usage isn't astronomical. Simple file serving isn't processor intensive.
Actually I'm using Dreamhost for serving mp3s, but there is no upload funcionality other than SFTP for myself.
I agree 100% with AH-Tina. It sorta creeps me out to see people throw around the VPS suggestion like installing and maintaining a server is the easiest task in the world. It's not rocket science, but since you usually just get a standard distro image, you need to know your way around Linux.
Or your box may become someone elses playground, or attack vector, or spamtool, or whatever.
Originally Posted by Alex
In my experience, a $50 or $75 VPS will beat a comparably priced dedicated server any day.
That may very well be true. If several VPS instances are starting to use the swap and really trash the harddrive, it may slow down your box too, but it helps to have proper hardware.