Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Windows Reseller Recommendation
Windows Reseller Recommendation
| Posted by SALvation, 05-11-2009, 12:38 AM |
| I have been with Jodohost as a reseller for 3 years, but recently their uptime has been horrible with some accounts and support has been slow as well. I am looking for a new Windows reseller.
Requirements:
- Windows w/.net 3.5
- SQL 2005
- Allows Management Studio to connect (Jodohost does not)
- I use HSphere now but have no preference
- Still need MySQL on rare occasions
My main concern is uptime and support. Price is not a concern. I have nearly 150 accounts on Jodo now and will only move a few, but am mostly looking for future accounts. Thanks for any recommendations.
|
| Posted by gate2vn, 05-11-2009, 01:51 AM |
| Cartika offers H-Sphere hosting. You can check them out, and ask for Management Studio
|
| Posted by Softsys Hosting, 05-11-2009, 02:59 AM |
| Your requirements are quite doable and I am not sure why your existing host does not allow remote connections to SQL Server database. What are your disk space and bandwidth requirements? What is your budget?
- Rick
|
| Posted by cycomhk, 05-11-2009, 03:46 AM |
| Alpshost, not the most known but very reliable, have been using them for about a year without any glitch.
|
| Posted by jacobcolton, 05-11-2009, 04:35 AM |
| Hi SALvation,
Do you have a minimum amount of diskspace and bandwidth required?
Regards,
Jacob
|
| Posted by (Stephen), 05-11-2009, 08:59 PM |
| Hello SALvation,
We do allow remote SQL connections, SQL Studio is allowed with a ticket, EMS Manager works native.
As for any outages, I am not aware of any major issue of late, we've done some scheduled maintenance but if you have any issue we are around to help via ticket or chat.
Good luck, as a general practice I always think diversity is good, and that includes hosting. Having more than one never hurts!
|
| Posted by kjawaid, 05-12-2009, 05:13 AM |
| you should check cartikahosting.com .. amazing support and service
|
| Posted by Ultima VPS, 05-12-2009, 05:30 PM |
| If price isn't a concern get a VPS or dedicated server. In terms of uptime its always greater on a VPS / Server. You will also be able to control your environment. Some hosts will provide a control panel for your server so you can manage it via a web interface.
|
| Posted by tcstatic, 05-12-2009, 05:53 PM |
| Not sure I would say that at all. It all depends on your host *period*.
|
| Posted by Ultima VPS, 05-12-2009, 06:02 PM |
| This is certainly our experience. With a dedicated server you can pretty much get 99.99% uptime as long as there is no hardware failure. VPS adds a software layer which can cause some downtime. Shared adds another layer with other users. Shared tends to be oversold as well. VPS less so. Dedicated servers can't of course be oversold (apart from Data).
|
| Posted by tcstatic, 05-12-2009, 06:11 PM |
| Sorry, I don't agree as I know of hosts that have much better uptime in their shared environment than many hosts dedicated server offerings, let alone VPS offerings. There are good hosts in all types of hosting and there are "not-so-good" hosts offering all types of hosting. We'll just agree to disagree
|
| Posted by Ultima VPS, 05-12-2009, 06:15 PM |
| If a dedicated host can't beat a shared host for uptime then you should leave them
|
| Posted by tcstatic, 05-12-2009, 06:38 PM |
| I agree with you, but not all hosting companies are created equal. There are many hosts offering dedicated servers that do not provide uptime rivaling some hosts shared accts month after month and year after year. Same could be said about a VPS versus a shared or dedicated.
If two different hosting companies offer the exact same hardware, same OS, even in the same datacenter their uptime can differ widely depending on how they manage/monitor their server.
Host1: Has the same box but the only alarm they have is their phone with the customer complaining their site is down. This host states they backup every day, yet many find it hard to come up with a backup that is within 30 days old. In case of disaster they are left fumbling.
If all hosts provided (not offered) the "real world" uptime etcetera, than it would simply be a matter of price....and we all know it's not that.
Host2: Has the same box, monitors it proactively with alarms for hardware problems (before they fail), monitors its resources and has CDP such as R1soft to restore one account, one email/account, one table in a database or entire database, a single file, folder, domain or the whole server in case disaster strikes. Offers 24/7 ticket, live chat, and phone support.
In the above case, even though the hardware, OS, datacenter, etcetera is the same…I can promise the uptime for host2 will be more responsive along with minimal downtime when/if disaster strikes. This holds true whether in a shared, VPS, or dedicated environment.
I'm simply stating just because you have a dedicated or VPS, that doesn't really mean as much as it should.
Last edited by tcstatic; 05-12-2009 at 06:44 PM.
|
| Posted by Ultima VPS, 05-12-2009, 06:41 PM |
| Yes this can happen. The price should be very different between the host 1 and host 2. Host 2 sounds more like an enterprise setup Host 1 is the other 99% of shared providers.
|
| Posted by tcstatic, 05-12-2009, 06:47 PM |
| I agree, but there are shared hosts offering that... and there are dedicated/VPS hosts offering the other. Yes, it is more expensive and that is where the consumer has to make the choice. They should not expect the service of Host2 in my example for the same price as Host1.
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
