Shared Web Hosting: Who Is Good?

Re:Shared Web Hosting: Who Is Good? by domnit on Thursday March 06, 2008 @11:22AM (#130617)

I use NearlyFreeSpeech.net <https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/>, which I heard about from BugMeNot. It's pay-per-use, so it can be very cheap (equivalent to a few cents / month, except it's not billed monthly). If you have a spike in traffic, they'll handle that just fine, since each site isn't bound to a single physical server. That also means your site isn't slowed down if some neighbor uses a lot of resources.

Some drawbacks are that there's no FastCGI, so no Django or Rails, and you can't get your own IP address, even for money, so no TLS. Also, it's Apache 1.3, if you care. If you just need to run some Wordpresses, they do a bang-up job or running mod_php 5.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Shared Web Hosting: Who Is Good? by rob on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:07PM (#130692)

NFS was exactly who I was going to say. They're awesome. Plus you can run Haskell, Lisp, Scheme, OCaml, etc via CGI to play around with :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Shared Web Hosting: Who Is Good? by Prrometheus on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:01PM (#130642)

Doesn’t Amazon do something similar?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Shared Web Hosting: Who Is Good? by domnit on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:17PM (#130656)

S3 is pay per use, but it's for static data hosting. EC2 is pay-per-use virtual machines, but it's at the granularity of machines. If you need a bunch of real, or real-looking servers, that's good, but it's too expensive if what you need is shared hosting.

S3 is cheaper than NFSN, so if you have lots of big files, you can host www.example.com on NFSN and point media.example.com to S3.

(Grain of salt: I haven't used EC2.)

[ Parent | on HN ]