This might open a debate that I would be very interested in :-) We are on
the verge of abandoning shared CF servers in favour of pure colocation
because of the hassles. I have made comments on this mail below but I'd
really welcome views - my conclusions are (as they should be) at the end of
that.
At 14:34 04/08/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Ok I am looking for a GOOD hosting solution that will allow me to use CF 4.5
>and SQL Server 7.0.
>I dont want a dedicated server, just shared server if possible, I am with
>Intermedia right now and for
>the last week their service has SUCKED because they 1. put too many people
>on each server
Can't comment on any other hosting company, but just how is one supposed to
know how many is too many?? It really depends on a myriad of factors, none
of which are generally clear at site launch to either the hosting outfit or
the client.
>2. dont monitor sites for BAD CODE that could bring the server to a
>screeching halt so in the last week
>my site has been up and down DAILY. Which is UNACCEPTABLE, they just say
>"well there is nothing
>we can do about it" Bull CRAP!
Now just precisely how do you monitor for 'bad code'? Obviously if CPU
hits the roof for prolonged periods it's a symptom, but by then it's a bit
late. There are plenty of so-called developers out there who are
incompetent, but short of examining each template, each SQL statement in
detail how does the hosting company adjudicate? Even then proving that a
client is the culprit can be difficult and contentious.
>Anyway Media3 I was going to go with until they too FOREVER to set up my
>account, maybe they were
>just having a bad day? So if you use them has your experience been good? The
>things I am looking for
>are reliablity and support that is EASY to contact. For instance intermedia
>you can ONLY CONTACT
>by email which is RIDICULOUS when hosting BUSINESS applications. If anyone
>can recommend
>a reliable CF/SQL hosting solution for no more than 75/95 a month please let
>me know.
So you want policing, code-checking, voice support, and all that for
75-95/month. Yet you don't want your own server, just to share. And you
shout about the difficulty in finding such a service because you're talking
about a business application?
My own view is that you get what you pay for. If your 'business
application' is that critical surely it merits a dedicated server.
Overall I think you raise a number of issues that perplex both
shared-server users and hosting companies, and these include:
1. How do hosting companies police CF developers?
2. What sanctions are reasonable where a site harms others on the same
box?
3. Where does support end and free CF consultancy begin? We have
plenty of 'naughty' users whose response to a complaint about the behaviour
of their templates is to seek advice from our support desk on how to fix
their bad code.
My own views remain vague about these questions, and we're inclined to move
to pure box-hosting since that way all we have to provide is bandwidth,
electricity and rack space. And that increases revenue, simplifies
support, and stops shouty emails :-)
Does anyone out there have any (non-CAPITALISED) views?
Thanks Kelly for focusing my mind on a current problem <s>
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
