Virtual/Dedicated hosting is more expensive than I thought...

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

voodooflux replied

22 October 2009, 07:36
I've had a server with Register1 (a sister company of ServerStream - a provider of managed servers for many major online brands) for a few years now. I can highly recommend the service, but I'm not sure how they compare to Fasthosts for spec/value. Their best deals require you to take a long term contract, which may be prohibitive to some.

Last edited by voodooflux; 22 October 2009, 07:47.
Leave a comment:
d000hg replied

22 October 2009, 07:08
Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post

Don't forget to look at bandwidth charges too.

http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/dedicated...ted-bandwidth/

Fasthosts are cheaper and there are no bandwidth charges.

Also, do you REALLY need a server that powerful?

http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/dedicated...ds500-windows/

Fasthosts are WAY cheaper... makes me wonder what the catch is. About 1/2 the cost for the equivalent of the Godaddy spec (DS700). For normal hosting, Fasthosts get panned everywhere I look... sounds like dedicated services are better.

And no I probably don't need quite such a good spec, it was just for comparison purposes.
Leave a comment:
OrangeHopper replied

21 October 2009, 17:28
I use bytemark for my virtual linux server. Looks like they do Windows. Never had a problem.

I originally started out with a 123 (WebFusion) virtual environment and it was an absolute disaster. 1st line support had no idea what to do and would never allow you to take to 3rd line. Cancelled the contract within a couple of months.
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

21 October 2009, 16:15
Don't forget to look at bandwidth charges too.

http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/dedicated...ted-bandwidth/

Fasthosts are cheaper and there are no bandwidth charges.

Also, do you REALLY need a server that powerful?

http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/dedicated...ds500-windows/
Leave a comment:
krytonsheep replied

21 October 2009, 15:54
My personal favourite is Slicehost
Leave a comment:
Bright Spark replied

21 October 2009, 15:50
Originally posted by Liability View Post

fasthosts - very cheap and does the job

have been using fasthosts for a number of years, recently I've been reviewing
other providers currently hetzner are offering better servers the basic linux
option is 49euros about 45gbp, just need to read the small print.....
Leave a comment:
Clarky replied

21 October 2009, 15:40
and you can get cashback through topcashback.com
Leave a comment:
Liability replied

21 October 2009, 15:37
Originally posted by d000hg View Post

GoDaddy (who I thought were well-regarded for quality & cost) want to charge £250/month for their 'premium' system: 2.8Ghz Intel Quad-core, 4Gb RAM, 600Gb disk-space. That seems a pretty unremarkable spec for a 'premium' server, and that cost doesn't include backups or any licenses other than Windows.

It just seems really expensive for nothing much, other than their connection to a very fast web connection. I never looked into dedicated servers before, is this about right?

fasthosts - very cheap and does the job
Leave a comment:
d000hg started a topic Virtual/Dedicated hosting is more expensive than I thought...

21 October 2009, 15:28
Virtual/Dedicated hosting is more expensive than I thought...

GoDaddy (who I thought were well-regarded for quality & cost) want to charge £250/month for their 'premium' system: 2.8Ghz Intel Quad-core, 4Gb RAM, 600Gb disk-space. That seems a pretty unremarkable spec for a 'premium' server, and that cost doesn't include backups or any licenses other than Windows.

It just seems really expensive for nothing much, other than their connection to a very fast web connection. I never looked into dedicated servers before, is this about right?
Tags: None