Take the 2-minute tour ×
Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Possible Duplicate:
How to find web hosting that meets my requirements?

I'm currently shopping around for a web host for our website we are hoping to release in the near future.

This is my first real step into this area. Just wondering what I should be looking for. It is an ASP.net MVC website with an MS SQL Server backend. I need to know that the server will not buckle if the traffic booms.

Currently I'm looking at a managed dedicated server from Singlehop.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by John Conde Jan 27 '12 at 1:59

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

5 Answers 5

The other option at Rackspace besides a Cloud Server is Cloud Sites. It's $150/month for a load-balanced cluster if you think it's going to be that busy. Windows hosting provides:

  • Windows 2008 Server
  • .NET v2, v3, & v3.5 SP1
  • IIS 7
  • MS SQL 2008

The hosting plan includes:

  • 50 GB of scalable storage space.
  • 500 GB of monthly bandwidth.
  • 10,000 compute cycles per month.
  • 24 x 7 x 365 support via live chat, phone, email or ticket

The nice thing about this approach is it can "scale up" (depending on what type of load your site produces. I don't think the database or storage "scale" like the web servers do).

At least this way you can get some load testing ideas (which you should do if you're expecting high traffic) on your setup now before you actually release it. Depending on what you find you can plan out more site work (eg. caching) or infrastructure the site needs (eg. database read replicas, CDN, etc.)

http://www.rackspacecloud.com/cloud_hosting_products/sites

share|improve this answer

For others coming to this question looking for Linux hosting: I use a virtual server from Stormondemand.com, which I've been very happy with but they only provide Linux. The original question is for Windows.

share|improve this answer

You could consider Windows Azure - it sounds like you don't need "a server" per se, but a place to host your asp.net/sql server app that can scale out as needed for better performance/stability. This can make sense if you hope to see your traffic boom to a level where multiple servers are required - perhaps in periods, perhaps located in data centers around the globe.

Moving your app to Azure will be trivial is you store state/data in sql server. If you write to the file system (like storing uploaded images), use services running outside iis or other 'not so static web app activities' you would need to address this first.

share|improve this answer

You can consider hosting on a Amazon EC2 using a Windows Server based instance. It's easy to scale up when you experience traffic spikes (and scale down later)

share|improve this answer

If you own your own server you can colocate it for about $100 per month. That includes 10mbps burstable up to 100mbps. Check out calpop.com (in Los Angeles)

If you don't own your hardware look into Rackspace cloud hosting for Windows. They charge you based on actual compute cycles, storage and bandwidth. They also include a CDN with this service meaning that your site in multiple locations in the USA making it considerably faster.

With the VPS hosting (Rackspace cloud) you will have access to your server through remote desktop RDP.

Colocated is cheaper, but requires an investment of hardware up front ($750 -$5k) and hardware updates are a bit harder since you don't have access to the server, but at CALPOP they do it for you for an hourly fee.

share|improve this answer
    
On the Rackspace site, their cloud server solution starts at $11/month, whereas managed coloc costs $419+/month. In theory cloud hosting or VPS should always be cheaper than coloc or dedicated hosting, since server resources are used more efficiently. The downside is that you lack consistency, and there's slightly less control over the server. But unless you're planning on using 100% of the server resources 100% of the time, cloud hosting should be more effective. –  Lèse majesté Nov 3 '10 at 3:31
    
The theory is only correct for low traffic sites. Once you are a high traffic site then cloud makes no sense financially. Could is a great way for a small team of devs, or a single man to start off a new web project. It allows lower total cost to begin with, but as that app grows then it makes more logical and financial sense to have your own actual hardware and just pay to administer it. I did the math with Rackspace cloud. What we pay now $105 at cal pop would cost us around $750 per month. But when we started the app it could have been on Cloud to save the $100 –  Frank Nov 4 '10 at 0:54
    
I can't recommend against CalPOP enough. They want $75 to change the email address on my account. Their network is inconsistent. Their tech support is generally nice and helpful but not very knowledgeable. And I paid them $400 2 weeks ago to upgrade the RAM on our leased servers and they can't tell me why they haven't done it yet. –  Bryson Dec 2 '10 at 20:02
    
CALPOP is awesome. I have never had a bad experience with them. I colo and lease a 1/2 rack. We manage it ourselves, hardware and networking. We have never had a bandwidth problem in over 3 years. Its fast, and dirt cheap, compared to others who resell their services for 5x fold. Never had an issue with accounting, and was able to pay cash to get setup. Maybe they just dont like you bryson? –  Frank Dec 2 '10 at 22:08
1  
Ha! Wouldn't be the first person that doesn't like me. We have three dedicated servers leased and they all run like tops, but we have constant issues with their connection to the rest of the world. When I took over the servers from the person I replaced, they started off on the wrong foot with me by wanting $75 just to change the email on the account. That's ridiculous. And they email me my username and (obviously unencrypted) password in plain text every time I file a ticket. Come on now. –  Bryson Dec 5 '10 at 5:53