Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Suggestions/recommendations for web hosts?

[hostingconfusion]

I discovered this site a few hours ago and it looks like a good place to ask for help. If this is not the right forum, please point me in the right direction.

I am looking to create a starting page for my blog, which among other things can serve as a backup in case the blog itself (hosted separately) goes down. The starting page will mostly be HTML, with no particular need for multimedia or databases or email services or any of the other extras. I may use some scripts over time.

This will be a new domain, so it will start slowly in terms of traffic. Once the page is setup, I will promote it on the blog, so some of the visitors may switch to the starting page instead of the blog. The blog itself ranges from 150k to 200k page hits per month.

My main priorities are:
- site stays up
- reasonable loading times
- low(er) prices

What type of services and hosting companies would you recommend for this type of thing?

Thanks.

[Orien]

So this hosting account won't have the blog on it? Just the starting page?

[Exoware]

I don't understand why you don't integrate the starting page on your current hosting plan.

Is it because you want to give your visitors a choice?

[gameforever]

Originally Posted by Exoware

I don't understand why you don't integrate the starting page on your current hosting plan.

Is it because you want to give your visitors a choice?

I also do not understand, if only one starting page, just need to find a good host provider and use the most cheapest shared hosting plan.

[Jedito]

But you'll need two hosts in this case, where in one it's the landing page, and in the other the blog. IMHO, you should have everything in one hosts and set your blog as the landing page, if your host it's down, everything it's going to be down though.

[4dwebhosting]

To answer your question..

What type of services and hosting companies would you recommend for this type of thing?

Pretty much any. A static front page would not load the server up much at all if any..

[Yawp]

Originally Posted by 4dwebhosting

Pretty much any. A static front page would not load the server up much at all if any..

Hi hostingconfusion

You should be able to find a reliable host at very good prices for just a landing page. Maybe try the offers section of WHT.

All the best.

[hostingconfusion]

Thanks to everyone for all your replies and suggestions.

One of the reasons I am looking for a separate host is in case one of them goes down, at least the other one will still be up. A poor man's plan B.

If there any better ways to do this, please let me know!

If I were to have both on the same hosting service, would grid services increase reliability? Do the standard webhosting accounts also have grid-like support/options?

The idea behind this is the static html page would be more of a reference and introduction with some sort of a headline ticker/feed pointing to the latest posts, and the blog itself would have the actual posts.

[MikeDVB]

Originally Posted by hostingconfusion

Thanks to everyone for all your replies and suggestions.

One of the reasons I am looking for a separate host is in case one of them goes down, at least the other one will still be up. A poor man's plan B.

If there any better ways to do this, please let me know!

If I were to have both on the same hosting service, would grid services increase reliability? Do the standard webhosting accounts also have grid-like support/options?

The idea behind this is the static html page would be more of a reference and introduction with some sort of a headline ticker/feed pointing to the latest posts, and the blog itself would have the actual posts.

Rather than paying two hosts, you could just find one decently priced *very* reliable host and not have to worry about it.

[DDT]

Agreed, you could find one very reliable host (and the "grids can go down, no matter what if it's at one place (location physically) it can go down even if on different boxes.)
But very high uptime is suitable for most. If you really want just a poor man's plan B as you call it I would guess your current host is the right price (cheap) but has reliability issues so thus the need for "plan B" and you can just pick almost any cheap hosting company as long as they are located on the other side of the country so if a disaster strikes one data center the other will still be up...if it's not data center related issues just any other host ...If it is network related look at a backbone map for the countries you care about and make sure whoever the new host is in a center that uses different primary backbones...this is one of those posts I can't quite figure out the "why" of ...

[hostingconfusion]

Great points DDT and MikeDVB!

Obviously I don't expect by adding a second host to get to the same level as one with a global network of server farms.

It's more the inside-the-box outages that I am more worried about since (from my experience) they are more frequent, not the outside the box (network, natural disasters, etc)

I am trying to reduce the risk of some (not all) possible outages, eg when a host or blog service goes down, has maintenance or upgrades, I screw up while trying to tweak, traffic spikes, host under attack from evils, etc... And at the same time offer the readers an alternative look of a traditional website instead of a blog.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well for those who are not inside my confused head

So if I understand the responses correctly, the suggestion is to use one of the affordable but reliable hosting services for Plan B?

I am not familiar with the hundreds of hosting services out there, so when I read the reviews and check the numerous websites it gets very confusing. The same company has glowing five-star reviews and total trashings. How do you figure out who/what to believe and find which services are considered reliable?

Thanks!

[AJSiv]

Try searching around for a more reliable host that can gaurente a more uptime percentage of say 99.9%

[Cody Salter]

Originally Posted by AJSiv

Try searching around for a more reliable host that can gaurente a more uptime percentage of say 99.9%

That means absolutely nothing. Just because a host guarantees 99.9% uptime does not in any way, shape, or form mean that it will actually be online 99.9% of the time.

"99.9%" is the level at which they will start crediting/refunding clientele. So the guarantee doesn't prevent downtime, it just means if they aren't up 99.9% of the time, they will reimburse you. While it is a step in the right direction, if you want good uptime you should look for a host with good uptime records/history and one that uses multiple levels of redundancy. (such as Dual PSU's, RAID, Multi-Homed network etc.)

Good luck with your search.

[belder]

hostingconfusion,

I do exactly what you're trying to do. I have a main site and a backup. And, my domain names are with a company other than the web host so if a site goes down or gets suspended, I can change the DNS address to the backup site and be up and running. If you get a host using CPanel most will copy your site from your old host to theirs.

Good luck!

[hostingconfusion]

Originally Posted by belder

hostingconfusion,

I do exactly what you're trying to do. I have a main site and a backup. And, my domain names are with a company other than the web host so if a site goes down or gets suspended, I can change the DNS address to the backup site and be up and running. If you get a host using CPanel most will copy your site from your old host to theirs.

Good luck!

Great tip! Thanks! I hadn't thought of that! So they cannot hold the domains hostage or have extra leverage in case of an issue or a dispute.

I must say I am impressed with this forum, so many helpful replies and no drama!