next »

[Pixel Stuff]

I was just wondering what everyone prefered for a hosting company. And if you've used others, why do you prefer one over another.

I am currently using 1&1 but I've heard some people haven't had good service from them. (based on this thread). I haven't had anything bad happen yet, but that's not to say it won't.

Just curious.

[rthrash]

I've heard the fewest complaints about http://mediatemple.net/ and http://dreamhost.com/

The control panel at Dreamhost is a bit goofy, and I believe Media Temple uses Plesk (which I've had good luck with).

[Dr. Scotty Delicious]

I haven't had anything bad happen yet, but that's not to say it won't.

I too have heard bad things about 1&1, and also I have heard lot's of good things about them.  I am sure every host has had a handful of customers with bad experiences.  If nothing bad has happened yet, stick with them if they fit your needs.

Some things to look for in a host that generally provide a nice MODx environment are

• Linux Server
• Apache 1.3 or higher.
• MySQL 4.0.25 or higher.
• PHP 4.3 or better (some hosts offer 4.x and 5 at the same time {using .php and .php5 respectively})
• PHP in FastCGI mode with suEXEC

Lot's of hosts offer these settings, and you will generally have an easy time setting up MODx on a system like this.  Of course not all these are required to run MODx, but PHP in FastCGI with suEXEC makes my life a bazillion times easier.

-sD-

[ZAP]

Of course not all these are required to run MODx, but PHP in FastCGI with suEXEC makes my life a bazillion times easier.

I totally agree with your list of requirements, but I have questions about suExec. What are the advantages of running PHP this way? So far my host has not switched over to suExec, but it seems like it's only a matter of time before most hosts do (for security reasons).

The only interaction I've had with suExec installations has had to do with limitations imposed by it. For example, you can't set PHP environment variables in your .htaccess file when you're running suExec. I habitually turn register_globals off and set compression and whatnot in my .htaccess file, so I guess I'd have to use a php.ini file instead (and my host would have to allow this, which right now they don't).

We now have about 15 accounts hosted on OneWorldHosting, and they have been receptive to our requests for server setting changes in the past (when we first started, they rewrote their entire Control Panel system when we complained that mod_rewrite didn't work properly with it). So if there are solid benefits of running suExec (other than server security, which is a given) then maybe we can give them a little nudge. We have used many other hosts in the past, but nowadays we stick with OWH because they have proven themselves to be extremely reliable and their tech support is exceptional.

[Dr. Scotty Delicious]

Hey ZAP, you bring up some good points on how suEXEC can make some things more difficult.  My webhost [ http://www.site5.com ] allows a custom php.ini in every directory.  This way I can register globals off in the root of my site, but have globals on in a subfolder or subdomain.  The thing I like best about suEXEC is that every server side script that executes is executed under my username, so for example, when MaxiGallery creates a folder, or GD alters an image, it's owner is "scottyDelicious", not "www" or "nobody".  What this means is that if I run a script and it creates a bunch of garbage on my server, I can FTP or SSH into my account and delete it.  I don't have to send a request to the host saying please rm -r such and such folder owned by "nobody".  It also means that things like the MODx installer script can delete the install folder after success.  Little things like that make suEXEC a great tool for me.

-sD-

[ZAP]

Hey ZAP, you bring up some good points on how suEXEC can make some things more difficult.  My webhost [ http://www.site5.com ] allows a custom php.ini in every directory.  This way I can register globals off in the root of my site, but have globals on in a subfolder or subdomain.  The thing I like best about suEXEC is that every server side script that executes is executed under my username, so for example, when MaxiGallery creates a folder, or GD alters an image, it's owner is "scottyDelicious", not "www" or "nobody".  What this means is that if I run a script and it creates a bunch of garbage on my server, I can FTP or SSH into my account and delete it.  I don't have to send a request to the host saying please rm -r such and such folder owned by "nobody".  It also means that things like the MODx installer script can delete the install folder after success.  Little things like that make suEXEC a great tool for me.

-sD-

Interesting. I have had occasional PHP user issues on some sites when I've variously switched between FTP and script-based image management and whatnot. On my servers my user trumps the PHP user (so via FTP I can always fix things), but I do remember a time on another host that I had to contact them to CHOWN an images directory because of this (and it was indeed annoying).

Running your scripts as you is definitely preferable. Especially for sites that are really "web 2.0" and allow more complex user interaction. Maybe I'll ask my host if they can move our main site to a suExec server and see how I like it.

Thanks for the reply.

[Starbuck]

At the moment for us hostgator is performing better than hostingzoom, hostgator have very good live help and are fast to resolve any issues, plus they tell it like it is. hostingzoom isn't quite as upfront, but they've been improving they seem to respond better to threats, rather than requests.

Of the two definately hostgator 'at the moment' they've got a good range of packages for all sized budget and the reseller accounts stack up better than hostingzoom... and they allow adult content. Both are Linix, php 4.4.2, mysql 4.1.19-standard, have cpanel, quite nice for modx installations amongst things.

[Chris Fancy]

Hi Guy's,

I'm a web host for Small to Medium Businesses here in the UK, I'm putting together some MODx hosting packages... Everything discussed in this thread, as a basic hassle free requirement to host a MODx install/site, is provided as standard.

Sorry if this sounds like an advert but I've had lots of... should I say.... issues with various providers hosting my clients websites, (1&1 is just one...!), so I decided to get it sorted myself and provide what's required... Service, Features and the best possible Support.

I currently host a number of clients sites, around 80+ the ones I develop are in the main either Etomite or MODx.  Even though I've only just discovered MODx, I think it has the edge over Etomite...

Depending on the clients requirements I recommend MODx as the best allrounder, I'm so impressed with it's capabilities, the likes of which, until recent years, you could only find in commercial products of £1000's.

Anyone who needs more details just let me know, in the meantime here are the features and server specs that I provide...

Server Specs: Dell Blade Servers
                      Dual Intel® Xeon Processor 3.0GHz with 512K Cache
                      4 GB SDRAM
                      Dual 36 GB SCSI Drive (for the operating system)
                      Pre-loaded Redhat Enterprise Linux.
PHP5
MySQL 5
Fully unrestricted CGI/PHP Scripts, including PHP.ini's
SSH server access - for advanced users
Full DNS Management, including sub-domains.
Your own mail server, as many email pop3 accounts as you need, various packages with various webspace etc...

But the main feature is you can have MODx Pre-Loaded...!

Simply put it's total freedom to host what you want, when you want and change it as often as you want.

...Again not intended to be an add but I can offer the MODx solution you are discussing here...

P.S. my own site is currently under going a Major re-design, in MODx, using the Mollio template...

Regards...

[kickass]

I use two different hosts and both are extremely good. I've been with below10host.com for over 9 years and they just keep getting better. Trick with them is the plans aren't that beefy but twice a year they have member upgrades for a buck a month that are outrageously generous. Reseller is true WHM, not that other crap where there aren't separate cpanels. They're basically a geek's dream. I did have some performance problems on one site early on, brought it to their attention and was moved onto a brand new server within the hour. They're extremely customer focussed, and you don't have to go past first rank support to "get to the smart geeks", since they're all very good. They're basically a geek's dream, have a lot of stuff installed that isn't standard on most hosts. And they treat every question like it isn't a stupid question.

Since I hate to have all my eggs in one basket, since a sysadmin change can be a major catastrophe with any hosting, I also have one site on hostgator. They've also been very good, and their servers are lightning fast (freeBSD as opposed to linux? I dunno.) I can't tell you how good support is since I haven't needed it, but that says something in and of itself, huh? The "multi-domain" on the regular hosting account doesn't have separate cpanels here, nor email addys for any but the main domain, dunno how reseller is handled. Plans are fairly generous.

[OpenGeek]

PHP5
MySQL 5

Chris, I'm curious what specific versions of PHP 5 and MySQL 5 are currently being offered by your service, oh, and also, is this using FastCGI/phpSuExec or does the webserver run as nobody?

[Bravado]

Another good hosting provider I've used in the past is Fluid Hosting (www.fluidhosting.com).  Although they're rates went up a bit (which is why I switched), they're quite solid, very reliable, and have some pretty ample packages that will fit your needs quite nicely.  In the two years I was there, I rarely had any downtime, and when I did I was notified by e-mail about it.  Never had any problems running MODx either.  All in all, they're definitely a host I would consider on your list.

[jaredc]

...I am currently using 1&1 but I've heard some people haven't had good service from them...

I've had a 1&1 account for over two years and not had a single problem with it (as I frantically look around for some wood to knock on). I also have a Dreamhost account (as suggested by Ryan) and it has been very reliable as well. Overall the 1&1 server/connection is faster, but so far I've been pleased with both.

[cyberk]

I've had good luck with Dreamhost.

For rock solid shared hosting, I recommend Pair.com. They are a bit conservative in terms of what you can do with their servers and programming environment compared to some others, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you need to do wacky things at the server level you probably want something more dedicated. Pair has splendid uptime and if something does go wonky they are totally on the ball.

I have had no trouble trying to do anything with MODx on Pair or Dreamhost.

My two pieces of advice on hosting:

• Do not go with cut-rate hosting just to save a few bucks a month. What is your time worth? What is uptime worth? If you cannot get highly competent tech support on the phone or by email within a few minutes, you will be sorry.
• Under no circumstances should you ever pre-pay for hosting. Month to month is the only way to go. If your host goes bad (and hosts go bad) you don't want to be locked into a contract. It is never worth paying for months or years in advance to save a few bucks.

[kickass]

I second what cyberk said about tying yourself into a longterm contract to get a cheaper price.  It's almost guaranteed that during  the term of your contract the sysadmin who handled things so aptly will keel over of a heart attack and things will go south quickly-- and hosting is ONLY as good as the sysadmin who is supervising the server environment. Neither of the hosts I use offer longterm discounts and I would be leery of any who do, since that to me is a tipoff of potential problems. And hosting is very much a buyer's market these days.

[Bravado]

For rock solid shared hosting, I recommend Pair.com. They are a bit conservative in terms of what you can do with their servers and programming environment compared to some others, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you need to do wacky things at the server level you probably want something more dedicated. Pair has splendid uptime and if something does go wonky they are totally on the ball.

I looked at Pair.com as well.  Their reviews are quite good and they have a good reputation.  Only thing that was a big turn-off for me was their policies (http://www.pair.com/policies/).  Seems they're quite strict on what you can and cannot do with your account.  The Database Resource Usage policy is perhaps the strangest.

[cyberk]

I've never run into any problems with Pair's policies or usage limitations, for what it's worth. Generally speaking, I think restrictions are good on a shared server to keep any one account from running rampant. If you have heavy usage needs, you probably need to be on a dedicated server.

More importantly, what you DON'T want is a host that is going to shut you down without first contacting you to let you know that your usage is approaching problem status. Or one that will let you run up thousands of dollars in overage costs without giving you a heads up.

Pair is definitely NOT the most cutting edge, liberal or affordable host. It is, however, the host I recommend to my clients when I want something I know is just going to work and when I want to know I can email or call and someone who will help me out fast. If you expect very heavy usage, run wacky CGI software, need to be able to tweak server settings, use Ruby on Rails, etc, Pair is probably not your best choice.

[mmjaeger]

I was wondering whether anybody has some experience yet with http://www.mosso.com/ - sounds to be a pretty good deal if you need to host multiple sites.

[Pixel Stuff]

I haven't used them or even heard of them before, but MAN! that looks impressive.  I like the idea of billing the client directly and even answering the phone as if under my company name. Quite cool sounding.

I would be interested to know any first hand experience with from dealing with these guys.

[kickass]

At the bottom of the page it says that "Mosso is a venture company of Rackspace Managed Hosting." So if folks have had positive experience with Rackspace it might be worth a shot. I know Rackspace has been around for a long time.

[rthrash]

Mosso looks really compelling and is supported by a killer support team (rackspace folks).

When they allow you to set up SSL certificates and have an SSH connection it'll be a great solution for many small businesses. Until SSH certificates are possible, no really secure apps or ecommerce is possible... but man, what a brochureware site platform!