server-factory.com: reliable?

rcy026

@Rosebelle said:
I had to comment on this one unfortunely.
Recommending shared hosting to someone who knows and has vps and dedicated servers...
It's the same situation as pc monitors, once you go 144hz, why would you go back to the trash 60hz?
In this case, why would you go back to shared hosting?
You must have a very special shared hosting, as all the ones I know limit IOPS, cpu usage, etc.
Just don't, please.

I have to disagree.

I have a shitload of vps's, probably 20 of them just idling. I still buy shared hosting.
Why? Because it fits my need.
I do not care if the provider limits iops or cpu, a lot of my sites are not even close to those limits so for me they could just as well not exist. I do not have to think about updating hundreds of packages and an os that I'm not using, and it literally takes seconds to get a site online.
But then again, I also run several webservers. Why? Because it fits my need.
Some websites requires external dependencies that can be difficult to run on a shared server. Some websites requires so much resources it's simply cheaper to run on a vps, and some websites are so secure and locked down I simply do not trust anyone else to run them. Also, since I build a lot of websites myself, developing them on a vps makes it easier to test and troubleshot.

Using a vps to run a simple website is just stupid, that's like hunting mosquitos with a gun just because the gun is cool, or trying to plow a field with a Ferrari. It has 800 horsepowers, it must be fantastic to pull a plow with it, right?
Comparing it with 60 vs 144Hz monitors and saying that 144Hz always is better is simply not correct. Using a vps to host a simple website would be like carrying around a big 32" curved 144Hz gaming monitor and connect it to your laptop while traveling. Yes, it is a very good monitor, but is it really suited for the task?

I say use the tool that fits the job.

Liso

@AXYZE said: 15 years ago we had 2-4 cores in server CPUs and HDDs that were 10-200x slower, Apache was dominant and slow as fuck

But today, most shared hosting still utilize apache right ? As nginx does not support htaccess.

Ympker

@Liso said:

@AXYZE said: 15 years ago we had 2-4 cores in server CPUs and HDDs that were 10-200x slower, Apache was dominant and slow as fuck

But today, most shared hosting still utilize apache right ? As nginx does not support htaccess.

MyW uses Litespeed or OLS which is great if you want to use LSCache on WP. Many hosts do that now, I believe.

hyperblast

@emperor said:

@vitobotta said:

@loay said:
Why not netcup or php-friends?

The configs/prices look better on Server factory

Its php-friends

php-friends / avoro - absolute premium!

AXYZE

@Liso said:

@AXYZE said: 15 years ago we had 2-4 cores in server CPUs and HDDs that were 10-200x slower, Apache was dominant and slow as fuck

But today, most shared hosting still utilize apache right ? As nginx does not support htaccess.

You can add htaccess support to nginx - for example my local host mydevil.net supports htaccess with nginx.
OLS/LiteSpeed Enterprise supports htaccess out of the box.
Apache Event MPM is faster than old shit we got back then.

Let's talk about pure raw performance:
Back then strong CPU for servers was Xeon 5150.
Geekbench 5 - ~330 single core, 660 multicore.
You could set it up in dual CPU configuration, then you got around 1300 multicore.

Now, SINGLE core is faster than pretty nice two processor dedi back then and you get 100% CPU limit in Shared Hosting pretty much everywhere, MyW gives you 200% CPU limit on Ryzen!

With NVMe vs HDD difference is even bigger!

We had CRAZY performance improvement in last 15 years.

If dedi with two processors was good enough 15 years ago, then Shared Hosting is also good today. And remember that many things are singlethreaded, especially back then so these dual CPUs weren't event used that much.

bhaveshtech

Yes, It is good. One of my friends using their service and no problems so far.