How Much Should Hosting Cost? - Developers

[QUOTE=TheHeartSmasher;31725746]It sounds like you have not chosen the right company/team for the job. Since you are starting off you should stay away from flash based solutions and go with more widely compatible out of the box solutions that use Javascript. The fact that the people you are talking with are using outdated technology is a big red flag. No new production system should be using a Pentium 4 as they reached end of life I believe back in 2007. Any company knowingly using EOL software and hardware way past their EOL is knowingly accepting future problems and additional headaches for clients. I would recommend you have a sit down with your dad and explain to him that you are being ripped off and malnourished by these contractors. Anyone that keeps up with technology which is the job of anyone in IT providing services knows that what they are doing is a big no-go. If you do continue to work with them make sure they are using modern supported hardware and have them give you a manufacturer breakdown of the hardware specs and their warranties. Also make sure you receive a breakdown of all the real hosting and development costs in black and white. You will also need to know what the real bandwidth and throughput you will be receiving on the server is along with if it is dedicated bandwidth or shared. For the application development ask them which version of Flex they are using along with the other software/programming language versions and post back here as I have a feeling they are also using outdated no longer supported/updated software too. If they are using a more modern version then you might have more options available to you in what they can offer so it works on most popular platforms. To be honest I would not use this company due the red flags listed above as it is a future sign of failure when new clients are provisioned with EOL hardware and the base of the applications being developed is not using something widely compatible.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Coon;31728232][url]https://www.welltodocentury.com/whmcs/cart.php?gid=1[/url] You should go with the Core2Quad Q9300 Quad Core. I chose that location because it's nearer to Canada. It's slightly more expensive than Fremont. It's 1/3rd the price that shit company quoted you, at least twice as good specs, and the support there are awesome. If you want to be nice, you can use my referrer link (If you go with this recommendation anyway) <I'll put the referrer link here> Here's a rundown on the spec difference P4 @ 2.8 Ghz / Core2Quad (4 cores) @ 2.5Ghz. 2mbit unmetered / 100mbit 5TB 2GB DDR2 / 8 GB DDR2 And it's 1/3 the price.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the support guys, but my parents had already signed the contract and it appears like they don't take my opinion in this matter too seriously [or at all for that matter]. ie. My dad will say how they're way more experienced and do this for a living and have all the certifications, blah blah blah. I'll never get through to them. I understand that P4 is absolute shit for a server and I find it incredulous that any one of them thinks it's OK to use it when we can get way better hardware for much less. The contractors did say once [and if] the company grows much bigger, we'd switch to a blade enclosure and buy our own servers and co-locate them somewhere in Toronto. With regards to using a flash-based solution, I still can't get over why they'd use it, even if the 10.1+ updates make Flash have much better usability. The contractors said it provides a really user rich experience, but there are other solutions that probably provide a similar experience, while being faster, more secure and more stable. I also asked them to not include as much Java as possible, but it seems that some of the back-end is going to be coded in Java for calls and stuff IIRC. But, I must hold my tongue to keep relations with them good and if I ever want to have a say in anything :v: Coon: With respect to you, I've found much better dedicated server sites (not that we're switching anyhow). However, I must say that the contractors I'm working with have you beat on traffic and bandwidth. It's actually 2MB/s guaranteed per client connection. (ie. Potentially multi-gigabit connection-like if the server could handle that many people at once.)

[QUOTE=Armyis1337;31731986]but my parents had already signed the contract[/QUOTE] sorry OP, you're shit out of luck

You don't need guaranteed 2mbit to all clients. A website will never push 2mbit/s to a single client unless you're streaming videos. If you want to be pedantic about bandwidth though, Intel Xeon Quad-Core E3-1270 3.4GHz 16 GB RAM DDR3 4 X Intel 320 G3 120GB SATAII SSD 100TB on 1Gbit/s port. $350 They're ripping you off big time. Shame your parents signed it already.

[QUOTE=Coon;31746807]You don't need guaranteed 2mbit to all clients. A website will never push 2mbit/s to a single client unless you're streaming videos. If you want to be pedantic about bandwidth though, Intel Xeon Quad-Core E3-1270 3.4GHz 16 GB RAM DDR3 4 X Intel 320 G3 120GB SATAII SSD 100TB on 1Gbit/s port. $350 They're ripping you off big time. [b]Shame your parents signed it already.[/b][/QUOTE] It really makes me sad. But sweet jeebs, that's a good deal. Now I feel even worse, what site is that from? (AYK?) (Hopefully we'll move to something like that in the future)

[QUOTE=Armyis1337;31747403]It really makes me sad. But sweet jeebs, that's a good deal. Now I feel even worse, what site is that from? (AYK?) (Hopefully we'll move to something like that in the future)[/QUOTE] At those prices the server is unmanaged, based on what you have posted here a managed solution would most likely be best. However, not at the price you are currently paying.

[QUOTE=Coon;31746807]You don't need guaranteed 2mbit to all clients. A website will never push 2mbit/s to a single client unless you're streaming videos.[/QUOTE] there's plenty of scenarios where you'd need to push to clients fast

[QUOTE=Coon;31746807]You don't need guaranteed 2mbit to all clients. A website will never push 2mbit/s to a single client unless you're streaming videos.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=pinkfreud;31758817]there's plenty of scenarios where you'd need to push to clients fast[/QUOTE] And how would 100mbit/1gbit between all clients not be sufficient? All the clients won't be simultaneously connected, so 1gbit shared between all your clients would be fine for a shittonne of people simultaneously connecting. [editline]16th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Armyis1337;31747403]It really makes me sad. But sweet jeebs, that's a good deal. Now I feel even worse, what site is that from? (AYK?) (Hopefully we'll move to something like that in the future)[/QUOTE] That's also from welltodocentury. I was kind of surprised at the prices. Might get myself one in a month or two - I've only got a dual core with them at the moment.

[QUOTE=Coon;31760592]And how would 100mbit/1gbit between all clients not be sufficient?[/QUOTE] i run a website that pushes 200mbps during peak periods

[QUOTE=pinkfreud;31760709]i run a website that pushes 200mbps during peak periods[/QUOTE] A 1gbit uplink would suit you fine then. There's no need for a "guaranteed 2mbit per client" - it's a waste of money.

[QUOTE=pinkfreud;31760709]i run a website that pushes 200mbps during peak periods[/QUOTE] Anyhub isn't a general consumer site though. Not everyone runs a filehost that does as well as Anyhub.

I got reg-123 reg as host because it was first one on google.. Should i get refund while i can and go for something else?

[QUOTE=LiLBliNg;31762109]I got reg-123 reg as host because it was first one on google.. Should i get refund while i can and go for something else?[/QUOTE] You mean 123-reg? I've used them several times before and they are fine.

[QUOTE=Sc00by22;31764001]You mean 123-reg? I've used them several times before and they are fine.[/QUOTE] That's it, i heard some very negative reviews about them after buying it, but it might have been biased so i asked here.