New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
What do you expect when you buy budget shared hosting?
As I'm seeing that my free service is not very often requested I was interested in finding out what you are looking for when going for a budget shared host.
Assume you pay 1$/mo or <10$ per year.
Uptime :
I assume that what my free hosting lacks is the promise of SLA/Uptime which is understandable when talking about important projects. How much do you expect under the stated circumstances?
What else do you expect in that price range?
Disk Space/ RAM / SSD/HDD / CPU / INODES /IOPS..
Comments
I'd say at least 1GB disk, probably not too much bandwidth depending on whether the company can afford to give a bunch or not. 100GB or less (maybe much less)
Most companies can offer 99.9% uptime usually
1-5GB Disk space, 50-300GB Bandwidth, fair CPU share with some restrictions (no abuse), any IOPS and little to no support with over 24 hours ticket response time..
At this pricepoint I would be happy if everything was stable for a small production enviorment. I wouldn't mind about slow pageloads in peak times. If I wanted better quality or actual support, I would look into 5-10€/m plans instead. In my opinion 1 USD plans are for DIY people and anyone who is demanding continuous support at this pricepoint is an idiot.
I need budget web hosting just for storing my not actual projects to what I will back later.
Requirements: the same as to any normal hosting, but I accept an idea that I'm paying a small amount of money for the very small amount of resources (disk drive maximum up to 5GB, 100-200GB of BW, can be an overloaded node).
For 1$ I expect:
So in other words:
My requirements the same as to normal web-hosting companies, but with fewer resources for that price (disk, BW only). And I strongly recommend to kick off from node who uses more than 10% of CPU instantly 24/7. The typical small site usually has not too much visitors, and such cheap hosts are not for playing with PHP and for education purposes, it's for hosting nonactual sites until you will back focus to them for conditioning to work with.
I expect poor hosting for anything under $10
But for a competent host who can do something at that price, I'd expect/like 1 hostable domain, cpanel, 1GB disk, 20GB BW and online > 99% of the time.
For less than $10/yr, 1GB SSD is fine. 50GB transfer per month is fine. Good network - network stalls and craptastic network providers are the kiss of death. Let me repeat that... AARGH! 100Mbps port speed is good, and a whole lot less than that would encourage me look around. Enough CPU not to lag in webmail, and preferably not lag too much in Cpanel or whatever control panel you use. At that price, Cpanel isn't mandatory, but something functional and unbuggy is. At least 1 email account.
Enough other resources that, even at busy times, it doesn't bog down and take 2 seconds to load a normal Web page (e.g. plain unencumbered Wordpress, with some simplistic Wordpress cache plugin), for viewers not too distant from the data center. Static pages should be snappy, period. I'd look for Letsencrypt, and be not as interested if it's not there. A dedicated IPv4 address would be nice, but I don't expect it at this price and would trade it for better overall everything else. I don't need IPv6 at the moment. I don't need Apache compatibility, although others might prefer it. Any really low-end host farting around trying to run Litespeed is a giant red flag for me. I don't need you to make backups. I don't much care if you don't write Web server logs.
For me, maybe not for everyone else, 99.9% uptime (scheduled and unscheduled) is marginal and I'd want to dump a host that can't do that - host dudes, express your shock and anger here! Yes, I know it's difficult to do all this. If you have to sacrifice something to keep quality and reliability up, then have 30 GB per month and 50Mbps port speed, or whatever, but if you can't keep your Web server up an average amount of time and your network in good shape, go join the Foreign Legion or something.
I expect cloudlinux limited resurces and a lot of caching and downtime...
I had resellers and vps from and everyday it goes down then I had a didi server from 3 month and its online since then.
I'm very impressed with buyshared, which at $5/year includes a dedicated ipv4 address, plus has had good uptime and speed and automatic letsencrypt certificate renewals, etc. I only use it for static file hosting though, so dunno about the db backend etc. all of which are also included.
I also like afreecloud which has more issues than buyshared, but it's free. Thumbs up to KuJoe for running it.
Maybe a 1GB dumping ground for static HTML files.
can someone share why do you need 50-100GB disk space on shared hosting as server resources such as CPU will be limited and I don't think any decent company will allow you to host iso download website? different matter is VPS.
Do you have some clients using this much or why are you mentioning an unusual demand like this?
I expect instant static file load times. I can understand shitty db, shitty wordpress performance, but if I toss a site up using jekyll, I expect it to be instant.
That's really about it.
Is a 24 hour outage acceptable on $10/yr hosting ?
Nope.
The likelyhood of this happening is suuper small I guess but I can see this happen when e.g. the whole DC is hit by force of nature or similar events that are beyond human control.
I expect exactly what my current budget shared hosting provider has been giving to me - stability and performance. To be more specific, that's 2GB SSD, 100GB bandwidth and unlimited everything else for $5/yr.
I don't think I'd get upset if it weren't a recurring issue and the hosting worked reasonably well the rest of the time. Heck I don't think I'd get upset with a $10/y service over flakiness regardless. I might decide that it didn't meet expectations, but then I'd just shrug my shoulders and move my stuff somewhere else.
The topic has come up before but I think the LET world needs a good cheap high availability web hosting plan (let's say "cheap" means within LET cap of $7/month). Basically just the usual stuff with failover servers, db replication, rotating DNS, etc. It seems very doable and I know lots of people who would buy it for low-volume ecommerce sites that aren't allowed to crash on holidays, and that sort of thing.
I expect the best of you
I've had loads of downtime over my service with Buyshared (have 2 reseller accounts).
Downtime the last 30 days itself is 6 hours (12 outages) with the uptime being 99.19%. And honestly, the last 30 days were considerably smooth compared to the service I was getting before. I'm afraid I don't have uptime logs before June though.
very unusual demand to have more that 5GB of storage for sharing hosting as personally I haven't seen any client who need shared hosting for that amount of storage, as above of such amount can be used the VPS instead - more dedicated resources for usage.
Ive had a client with a large image gallery once he needed around 9GB but that was it. Anyway he was not tech he wouldn't know what vps or shared hosting were. He was just looking for webhosting and expected it to work. You cant expect clients necessarily to be able to differ between shared hosting / vps hosting etc.
Our customers on average use like 6-7 gigabyte, the lowest being a few megs, the highest being above 100 gigs.
But I guess it depends on customer base as well.
But anyway - free/cheap hosting - I don't expect anything :-) Or well, I expect hundreds or thousands of customers per server.