asim said:
Now getting a little more complex, I'm sure there are ways to have hosting setup in say the US and UK then forward a user to a particular server dependant upon their location which should basically benefit all the users and split the load across multiple servers. Am I right?
I understand this is merely a hypothetical solution, but as far as I can see doing such a thing would be a complete waste of time. The amount of time and effort it would require to create and constantly update a mirror of your website is simply not worth it to reduce the response time for a portion of your target audience. The only people who are really going to notice the reduction in transfer speed are those with ridiculous internet connections (8Mbps), and they're going to be used to it anyway.
asim said:
Looking at linux servers I think. These are the 3 companies I've scoped out from a Top 25 site.
Linux is pretty much a given when you're looking for shared hosting; unless, of course, you need to run applications only available on alternative operating systems (OS X, Windows, Solaris etc.). As a second point, "Top 25" sites are usually not a very reliable source of information when it comes to web hosting. It's a well known fact that many of these sites take bribes, and some are even run by web hosts themselves, purely to place their own services at the top of the list and drive business to their site. You should have a look at real reviews of companies — there are entire forums out there dedicated to web hosting.
asim said:
I'm not convinced they can offer what they are saying. I mean 20gb space and 500gb of monthly traffic for $9.95 a month. Can companies actually provide this? I'm sure its not dedicated amounts ofcourse but also I'm guessing those who offer huge space dont have as fast transfer speeds.
This is what's known in the trade as "overselling" — when a host advertises and sells more than they are actually able to offer. Web hosts advertise insane amounts of storage space and data transfer because, unfortunately, a lot of shortsighted people base their buying decision on these figures. Obviously web hosts are not able to offer the kind of package that you mentioned — 500GB of transfer would cost ~$20/month alone with a bargain-bucket carrier — but they advertise these sort of offers because they known that most of their customers will only use a fraction of those resources. Handled well overselling can be a good thing. Just look at the mobile phone networks — they don't have enough capacity to have all of their customers utilising the network at the same time, but the costs involved would make the service completely unfordable for the customer. On the other hand, there are a number of web hosts who advertise huge figures then tuck away clauses in the Terms & Conditions which make it physically impossible to reach the limits stated — restrictions on the amount of processor time you are allowed, or simply a blanket clause allowing them to suspend your account if you use an unspecified amount of resources.
asim said:
I seem to remember hearing good things about HostMySite.com. They oversell, obviously, but from what I've heard they're a solid company. Hostway are also a good company, but they wouldn't be my first choice if I were looking for web hosting. Aplus.net I have never heard of, and their site doesn't look awfully professional to me.
As Beansprout mentioned earlier in the thread, have a look at
www.ochostreview.co.uk for some good, reputable hosts
