Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
facilities.

Very basic requirements:

Linux
Apache
Perl
email

monthly transfer > 100gB

If you supply such a service, please post you business web address and
I'll check you out.



Matt

PS

Note to trolls:

Yes I have done a search on Google, yes I have done a search on
www.webhostingtalk.com, no neither of them inspired me.

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

<Matt Probert> wrote in message
news:47cee240.6469843@news.freenetname.co.uk...
> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> facilities.
>
> Very basic requirements:
>
> Linux
> Apache
> Perl
> email
>
> monthly transfer > 100gB
>
> If you supply such a service, please post you business web address and
> I'll check you out


I'd vote for http://www.clook.co.uk/services/dedicated
I do use them but not for dedicated server so can't comment on cost, but
nothing short of excellent service in my own experience. Other than that I
have no affiliation with them.

--

Neil

(Matt Probert) wrote:

> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> facilities.

Does this exclude VPS? (Just asking, am looking too).

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

"Ex-tiscali" <neilr@pages-uk.com> wrote:

>
><Matt Probert> wrote in message
>news:47cee240.6469843@news.freenetname.co.uk...
>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>> facilities.
>>
>> Very basic requirements:
>>
>> Linux
>> Apache
>> Perl
>> email
>>
>> monthly transfer > 100gB
>>
>> If you supply such a service, please post you business web address and
>> I'll check you out
>
>
>I'd vote for http://www.clook.co.uk/services/dedicated
>I do use them but not for dedicated server so can't comment on cost, but
>nothing short of excellent service in my own experience. Other than that I
>have no affiliation with them.

Er, you didn't read that page did you?

"This page will be available very soon!"

And despite inviting one to "order now" they don't offer dedicated
servers as a service!

Thanks anyway.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>(Matt Probert) wrote:
>
>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>> facilities.
>
>Does this exclude VPS? (Just asking, am looking too).
>

Yes. I am looking for a replacement DEDICATED server. Not a VPS.

I shant get involved with the whys and where-fors here, suffice to
say. I am the customer, and I want a dedicated (rented) server.

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Matt Probert wrote:
> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> facilities.

I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
dedicated servers.

http://servint.net/dedicated/

(Matt Probert) wrote:

> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>(Matt Probert) wrote:
>>
>>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>>> facilities.
>>
>>Does this exclude VPS? (Just asking, am looking too).
>>
>
> Yes. I am looking for a replacement DEDICATED server. Not a VPS.
>
> I shant get involved with the whys and where-fors here, suffice to
> say. I am the customer, and I want a dedicated (rented) server.

Oh, I don't want to deny you your choice, just curious. I am currently at
just over 14k visitors a day and burn about 40-50G/month and have plans to
move to VPS or maybe dedicated. So I would like to see some whys and
where-fors if you care to share them.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

On Mar 5, 12:14pm, (Matt Probert) wrote:
> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> facilities.
>
> Very basic requirements:
>
> Linux
> Apache
> Perl
> email
>
> monthly transfer > 100gB
>
> If you supply such a service, please post you business web address and
> I'll check you out.
>
> Matt


I have been very happy with www.servstra.com and www.geekrack.net.

Dwight

Matt Probert wrote:

> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
> > (Matt Probert) wrote:
> >
> >> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> >> facilities.
> >
> > Does this exclude VPS? (Just asking, am looking too).
> >
>
> Yes. I am looking for a replacement DEDICATED server. Not a VPS.
>
> I shant get involved with the whys and where-fors here, suffice to
> say. I am the customer, and I want a dedicated (rented) server.
>
> Matt

Matt
I dont even know if they offer the service you're after, but I've never
and I mean *never* had any reason to feel anything but thrilled with
NSDesign in Glasgow. Not exactly local I know, but I've had five sites
hosted with them for more than six years and never had to wait more
than 30 minutes for a reply to support, even 'out of hours', have a
'personal' contact there who does things like phone me up and remind me
that a domain I'm using is about to expire, recommend updates to php,
etc. I get sweet fuck all out of recommending them, so at least you'll
know I'm not biased )

--

In article <dZSdnTALQeiubVPanZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
sbryce@scottbryce.com says...
> Matt Probert wrote:
> > Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> > facilities.
>
> I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
> dedicated servers.
>
> http://servint.net/dedicated/
>

I second the ServInt suggestion. I'm going on 18 months with absolutely
no problems.

"nully" <null@null.null> wrote:

>Matt
>I dont even know if they offer the service you're after, but I've never
>and I mean *never* had any reason to feel anything but thrilled with
>NSDesign in Glasgow.

They don't appear to provide what I'm looking for. But thanks anyway.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:

>Matt Probert wrote:
>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>> facilities.
>
>I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
>dedicated servers.
>
>http://servint.net/dedicated/

Too expensive. And I mean very expensive.

I also should have mentioned, due to American tax laws, hosting can
NOT be in USA territory.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

(Matt Probert) wrote:

> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Probert wrote:
>>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>>> facilities.
>>
>>I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
>>dedicated servers.
>>
>>http://servint.net/dedicated/
>
> Too expensive. And I mean very expensive.
>
> I also should have mentioned, due to American tax laws, hosting can
> NOT be in USA territory.

Matt,

Can you in a sentence or two describe to me why VPS is not good enough?
Since I've had plans for some time to switch to VPS, I am curious why
dedictated in your opinion is better/has advantages. A pointer to why is
also ok and welcome.


--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

John Bokma wrote:
> (Matt Probert) wrote:
>
>> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Probert wrote:
>>>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>>>> facilities.
>>> I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
>>> dedicated servers.
>>>
>>> http://servint.net/dedicated/
>> Too expensive. And I mean very expensive.
>>
>> I also should have mentioned, due to American tax laws, hosting can
>> NOT be in USA territory.
>
> Matt,
>
> Can you in a sentence or two describe to me why VPS is not good enough?
> Since I've had plans for some time to switch to VPS, I am curious why
> dedictated in your opinion is better/has advantages. A pointer to why is
> also ok and welcome.
>
>

John,

A VPS is shared - you get a percentage of the CPU cycles, memory and
other resources. A dedicated server you have all by yourself.

That's why VPS's are so much cheaper.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp\0\0\0jstucklex@attglobal.net
=================

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2eednStWY69tqU3anZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> John Bokma wrote:
>> (Matt Probert) wrote:
>>
>>> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Probert wrote:
>>>>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>>>>> facilities.
>>>> I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
>>>> dedicated servers.
>>>>
>>>> http://servint.net/dedicated/
>>> Too expensive. And I mean very expensive.
>>>
>>> I also should have mentioned, due to American tax laws, hosting can
>>> NOT be in USA territory.
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Can you in a sentence or two describe to me why VPS is not good enough?
>> Since I've had plans for some time to switch to VPS, I am curious why
>> dedictated in your opinion is better/has advantages. A pointer to why is
>> also ok and welcome.
>>
>>
>
> John,
>
> A VPS is shared - you get a percentage of the CPU cycles, memory and other
> resources. A dedicated server you have all by yourself.
>
> That's why VPS's are so much cheaper.


Also, just like shared hosting - things that other customers do on the
physical server can affect your account. It makes it a little less likely
on a VPS, but the chance is still there.

--Tina
--
Tina Peters
AxisHOST.com | BuyAVPS.com
Serving the web since 1997

"Tina Peters" <tina@axishost.com> wrote:

> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:2eednStWY69tqU3anZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> (Matt Probert) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt Probert wrote:
>>>>>> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
>>>>>> facilities.
>>>>> I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
>>>>> dedicated servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://servint.net/dedicated/
>>>> Too expensive. And I mean very expensive.
>>>>
>>>> I also should have mentioned, due to American tax laws, hosting can
>>>> NOT be in USA territory.
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Can you in a sentence or two describe to me why VPS is not good
>>> enough? Since I've had plans for some time to switch to VPS, I am
>>> curious why dedictated in your opinion is better/has advantages. A
>>> pointer to why is also ok and welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> A VPS is shared - you get a percentage of the CPU cycles, memory and
>> other resources.

Yes, I am aware of that. I would only go with a VPS provider that
*clearly* states how many VPSes are running on a box, and gives the
specs of the box.. The main bottleneck to me is probably the number of
hits a site can handle. Since I serve static HTML pages CPU + memory is
probably never an issue.

> A dedicated server you have all by yourself.

Yup, *but* it's connected to a shared network. I wondering which in my
case it the actual bottleneck, or maybe I should ask: serving static
pages which bottleneck am I most likely to hit, and if I hit it, how
many visitors are we talking about?

I am currently on a dedicated server afaik (shared hosting, but afaik
there are only 2 sites on the machine, both are mine), and 40k visitors
a single day does make it crawl.

>> That's why VPS's are so much cheaper.

Yes, I get that point.

> Also, just like shared hosting - things that other customers do on the
> physical server can affect your account. It makes it a little less
> likely on a VPS, but the chance is still there.

There is *always* a risk, and I have little doubt that the risk of
someone entering your server via a bug in Apache/PHP is way, way higher
compared to a VM which allows customer 1 to get to the VPS of customer
2. Even if the probability of such an exploit is equal, I would prefer
the VPS over the Apache/PHP combo, since the former requires that the
hacker is a customer on the same machine. In short, a non-argument to
me.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>Matt,
>
>Can you in a sentence or two describe to me why VPS is not good enough?
>Since I've had plans for some time to switch to VPS, I am curious why
>dedictated in your opinion is better/has advantages. A pointer to why is
>also ok and welcome.

Bearing in mind:

1) My opnion is my own subjective opinion for my site, with little or
no bearing on any other site, and should not be taken as a
recommendation, criticism or suggestion for what may or not be correct
for any other site

2) You don't like me




I don't like a VPS for my application because I don't like sharing CPU
resources, and I like to be able to have complete control over the
server.


Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>Yes, I am aware of that. I would only go with a VPS provider that
>*clearly* states how many VPSes are running on a box, and gives the
>specs of the box.. The main bottleneck to me is probably the number of
>hits a site can handle. Since I serve static HTML pages CPU + memory is
>probably never an issue.

While I run a very large, bespoke database application which searches
through over 200,000 separate records many times a minute typically.

As I said, my application is rather unusual, and probably has no
bearing on anybody else.

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

(Matt Probert) wrote:

> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt,
>>
>>Can you in a sentence or two describe to me why VPS is not good enough?
>>Since I've had plans for some time to switch to VPS, I am curious why
>>dedictated in your opinion is better/has advantages. A pointer to why is
>>also ok and welcome.
>
> Bearing in mind:
>
> 1) My opnion is my own subjective opinion for my site, with little or
> no bearing on any other site, and should not be taken as a
> recommendation, criticism or suggestion for what may or not be correct
> for any other site

Which I understand.

> 2) You don't like me

Not sure. I don't like some of your posts / your behavior (now and then).
Which doesn't necessarely mean that I wouldn't like you as a person IRL,
or don't like you in general (if that was the case, I would have kf-ed
you). I always see you as someone who is in general ok, but holds an
extremely long grudge against some people and keep looking for ways to get
back. IMO a waste of time & energy, and you bother other people by doing
so (again IMO).

OTOH: I am perfectly aware that I am far from perfect myself, and could do
things a lot better myself (Usenet, and in general). But one thing I try
to do is to keep issues that occur in one thread in that thread as much as
possible, and try to avoid to get back.

> I don't like a VPS for my application because I don't like sharing CPU
> resources, and I like to be able to have complete control over the
> server.

I hear you, and somewhat agree with you on this. However, I am also aware
that I'll never have complete control over the network the server is
connected to (there is always sharing). What I am wondering about is: is
VPS good enough (for me), and what's the main bottleneck for my site
(static pages, quite lean). I would say: the number of connections Apache
can handle. And I am not sure if that's a processor issue, a memory issue,
or a bandwidth issue. I would say: mostly the latter. But any input on
this is very welcome.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

(Matt Probert) wrote:

> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I am aware of that. I would only go with a VPS provider that
>>*clearly* states how many VPSes are running on a box, and gives the
>>specs of the box.. The main bottleneck to me is probably the number of
>>hits a site can handle. Since I serve static HTML pages CPU + memory is
>>probably never an issue.
>
> While I run a very large, bespoke database application which searches
> through over 200,000 separate records many times a minute typically.
>
> As I said, my application is rather unusual, and probably has no
> bearing on anybody else.

One of the things I have been considering is to move my static pages to a
database. While I doubt if I even would get close to 200,000 records [1] I
have the feeling that we do have some bottlenecks in common (for example:
the number of records doesn't matter if the true bottleneck is the max
number of connections a second the server can handle. I also assume that
your database is well-indexed, and that for fetching a single page an O(1)
lookup is used, and hence in that case it shouldn't matter much if there
are 200,000 or 20,000,000 records.).

Moreover, while I won't get close to 200k records, I might get customers
who do so, without much trouble.


[1] Note: I would never get close to 200,000 pages, but there is more
stuff one would like to keep in a database in my case.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

In article <47cf9700.670312@news.freenetname.co.uk>, (Matt Probert)
says...
> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:
>
> >Matt Probert wrote:
> >> Can you please recommend a provider of dedicated web server
> >> facilities.
> >
> >I have a VPS with ServInt. I am very happy with them. They also do
> >dedicated servers.
> >
> >http://servint.net/dedicated/
>
> Too expensive. And I mean very expensive.
>
> I also should have mentioned, due to American tax laws, hosting can
> NOT be in USA territory.
>
> Matt
>
>
> --
> The Probert Encyclopaedia
> http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
>

But with ServInt, you get what you pay for.

SAZ wrote:
> But with ServInt, you get what you pay for.

Yes, but Mr. Probert may not need that. Besides, he has reasons to not
want hosting in the US.

In article <uqidnbQwQOqQGE3anZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com>,
sbryce@scottbryce.com says...
> SAZ wrote:
> > But with ServInt, you get what you pay for.
>
> Yes, but Mr. Probert may not need that. Besides, he has reasons to not
> want hosting in the US.
>

I was not ignoring the non-US part, I was simply addressing the
expensive comment. Over the past 7 years, whenever I went with
"Budget" hosting I always regretted it. ServInt is higher than many and
lower than most, but worth every dollar.

SAZ wrote:
> ServInt is higher than many and lower than most, but worth every
> dollar.

For you and me, it is worth every dollar. For Mr. Probert it may not be.
The thing that led me to go with ServInt was the higher level of
management/support that they offer in a VPS. Someone who has experience
managing a server may not want to pay the extra money for that.

SAZ <saz1958@nospamexcite.com> wrote:

>
>But with ServInt, you get what you pay for.

As with many companies. Perhaps the easiest way to explain my
situation is with an analogy.

Should I wish to transport my small family on weekly shopping
expeditions on a journey of about 5 miles round trip there are
numerous motr vehicles which will satisfy the need. Some cost more
than others, a Rover 200 will do the job as will an Aston Martin DB9,
one has more comfort and extras which I don't feel the justification
to pay for.

In business, one finds the lowest solution. Starting with a shared
account on a reseller machine, and rising through larger bandwidth
untill the minum requirements are met in terms of storage, bandwidth,
management faciklitues, support &c.

ServInt provide and charge for, facilities I have no need for. Ergo,
too expensive for me.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com