Which do you think is more important, all other things equal, bandwidth
or space? One company has 5GB space, but 100GB traffice for $13.
Another has 2GB and Unlimited bandwidth traffic.

I have to admit that I like the $13 service slightly better in
pre-sales, but the other was okay.

The two are siteground versus webhost4life, respectively. siteground
is $8 + 5$ for 50MB MsSQL Database. Webhost4life 2GB in the $9.95
plan. Webhost is better moneywise, but I don't know if it is better
because of the space limitation. 2GB seems like a lot, but so does
5GB. I don't know how much a "decent" site can rack up in bandwidth
limitation. Maybe someone can help me.

Thanks for any help or other recommendations.

Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
<needin4mation@gmail.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

equal first

o customer service
o reliability

then

o facilities

and finally

o performance and capacity

if 'all other things' are really equal then it comes down to what your
site needs. I'd guess you'd be hard pushed to use 2GB so disk allocation
wouldn't be an issue.

Note: Unlimited (anything) does not exist - in this universe. The use of
'unlimited' in marketing material is often considered to be fraudulent
hype - of course that may not be the case with the companies you have
contacted - simple ignorance (aka cluelessness) can have the same result.

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

On 19 Jan 2006 05:39:43 -0800, needin4mation@gmail.com wrote:

We currently send out 5.7 GB a day through our HTTP server.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
Over 235,000 definitions and descriptions
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

<needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137677983.081218.175920@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
Read William's comments, they're good.

You should have an idea whether 2GB or 5GB space is sufficient. Most
websites struggle to get up to 100MB. Be realistic, is 2GB likely to be a
limitation - ever or in the next 12 months?

Something else to consider is that these are shared servers. The
webhost4life offers asp.net - I've not looked at Webhost, but performance is
likely to be a factor of how many other sites the server is hosting and what
applications other sites have running on their website. However if you need
to keep costs down (don't we all) then shared servers are the way to go.

I suggest visiting www.webhostingtalk.com and doing a search on both
webhost4life and webhost to see what others have said about them. (Just
remember that most people are more likely to rant about bad experiences than
offer praise over good experiences.)

Hope this helps.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

And lo, Brian Cryer didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:

The last post mentioning my host at webhostingtalk was from November of
2004. I cannot decide if this is a good or a bad thing

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine

"GreyWyvern" <spam@greywyvern.com> wrote in message
newsp.s3mufc06sl6xfd@news.nas.net...
*Assuming* I'm right about people being more likely to put up negative posts
than positive ones, I would take this as a good thing.

Who's your host?
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

And lo, Brian Cryer didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:

I host with NetFronts <http://www.netfronts.com/>.

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#sear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine

needin4mation@gmail.com writes:

This is not unlike asking a human "so which is more important, all
things being equal--would you like air to breathe or food?"

The answer to your question depends on your use of the hosts in
question. If you're serving up a boatload of photos to an audience
that consists of 4 family members that might look at em once, disk
space is what you care about.

If yer looking to get thousands of eyeballs ona handfull of video
files, bandwidth is what you seek.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On 19 Jan 2006 05:39:43 -0800, needin4mation@gmail.com posted
something that included:

There isn't one customer in a hundred that would come anywhere near
reaching either of those two limits.

Mr. Tasso's recommendations are good. (I'd reverse the order of the
last two factors he lists, but that's a really minor quibble.)

In checking out hosting companies, a couple of resources you might
want to check out are Netcraft and Alexa.

According to Netcraft, Siteground was established in June 2004, moved
from ServerBeach to ThePlanet in March 2005, and moved again to EV1 in
November. Where will they be in another six months? I'm not saying
there are never good reasons to switch data centers, but experienced
sysops are able to choose a data center that meets their needs, and
they stay planted. Alexa.com reports that they have average speed
(slower than 59% of the web.) Be aware that if you decide to telephone
the owner, he's in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Webhost4Life is Windows hosting. According to Netcraft, they set up a
lot of subdomains that appear to be servers, in 2003 and 2004, and not
many recently. That could indicate a lot of customers leaving. Windows
hosting tends to be incompatible with many web applications, but you
know what you want to run, and if it's not a problem, it's not a
problem. Windows also tends to be slow - and according to Alexa,
WebHost4life.com is slower than 2/3 of the web. If you check the
reviews at Alexa/Amazon, you'll find some really serious complaints
about performance, and about accounting.

There are tons of hosting companies out there, and some of them are
even GOOD hosting companies. I don't see anything to indicate that
these are horrible hosting companies, but I would recommend looking at
a few other companies.






--
AmishHosting.com

On 19 Jan 2006 William Tasso wrote in alt.www.webmaster

bullshit?

--
D?