"cloud hosting" expereirences?

[bsdmike]

Has anybody tried the cloud hosting services from Hostgator or Bluehost?

I have outgrown the account I have now...and was trying to decide between a service like VPS Dime's
'dedicated' vps or a cloud server like hostgator or bluehost.

My concern of the cloud server is caching issues. Will it seem the board out of sync??
Is the performance good?? (Could somebody provide me a link to there site to take a peek?)

Thank you,
Mike

[david63]

From what I have read about it "Cloud Hosting" is just a current "buzz phrase" as basically there is no difference to any other type of hosting other that the way that hosts are able to configure your set up - and that is all transparent to the user.

Apparently my hosting account is on the "cloud" but as far as I can see it is just the same as being on the ground

[Lumpy Burgertushie]

I have found the same thing to be true. "cloud" hosting is pretty much the same thing we have been using since web hosting came about in the early 90s. your hosting company has machines/servers in a server center somewhere. you buy a hosting account. they sell you a "normal" hosting account or a "cloud" hosting account.

your website files still reside on a machine in that server farm.

robert

[k0nsl]

Yeah, it's a really deceitful marketing term which many companies use to "lure customers". There is no clear definition, either.
At any rate, a company who offers anything "cloud"-based must be able to tell you exactly what it means. And what does it mean, or how do you qualify to use this term? Well, strictly speaking one has to be able to offer redundancy on every level — which basically translates into 100% uptime. So there is a very real difference, but you have to go with a company that can actually offer this kind of redundancy.
I know a few companies that can do that.
Best wishes,
-k0nsl

From what I have read about it "Cloud Hosting" is just a current "buzz phrase" as basically there is no difference to any other type of hosting other that the way that hosts are able to configure your set up - and that is all transparent to the user.

Apparently my hosting account is on the "cloud" but as far as I can see it is just the same as being on the ground

[Lumpy Burgertushie]

Well, strictly speaking one has to be able to offer redundancy on every level — which basically translates into 100% uptime.

curious, why do you say that that is the true definition of "cloud" hosting?

there is, of course, no true guarantee of 100% uptime for anything.

there is no such thing as the "cloud". It is simply a collection of actual servers located somewhere. better hosting companies have always provided redundancy by backing up to different servers and sometimes in different locations. I think that they are just calling it "cloud hosting" now.

the data has to be sitting on a real hard drive or disk etc. somewhere, it can't just be floating in the "clouds".



robert

[k0nsl]

...because if you cannot offer redundancy on every level (not just Remus for backups ) then it isn't cloud.
Simple!

You are the only person I've got on ignore; I will not waste even so much as a minute of my time with you — starting from this post and onward. I'm telling you this so that you don't think I am being rude by not answering your posts.

Have a good weekend.

-k0nsl

Well, strictly speaking one has to be able to offer redundancy on every level — which basically translates into 100% uptime.

curious, why do you say that that is the true definition of "cloud" hosting?

there is, of course, no true guarantee of 100% uptime for anything.

there is no such thing as the "cloud". It is simply a collection of actual servers located somewhere. better hosting companies have always provided redundancy by backing up to different servers and sometimes in different locations. I think that they are just calling it "cloud hosting" now.

the data has to be sitting on a real hard drive or disk etc. somewhere, it can't just be floating in the "clouds".



robert

[Lumpy Burgertushie]

would be nice of you to at least explain to me why you have me on ignore. better done via PM.

what did I ever do to you?


robert

[Piscator]

whoops old thread I know, im going through a lot of old topics since my last visit.

feel I can add to this. recently we were forced off our cloud hosting to cpanel. the difference is quite noticeble at peak times on our cpanel hosting with frequent I/O usage limits getting hit which was never a problem on the cloud hosting.

cloud hosting isnt a buzzword for "server" take your oridnary server that people are familiar with for example. you have one server and you either share that one server with a group of people and share that one single servers resources or are allocated a fraction of its resources. if that one server goes down you cant get on your website.

with cloud server(s) the resources are drawn from several or more servers, a cluster if you will. a few can go down but your site will stay online so long as they dont all go down, resources are also a bit better than a single shared server since they can be allocated and reallocated when needed. if your site requires more resources than any other sites on the cloud you will be given all the resources you need as the other sites may not require the extra bandwidth at that time. which is probably the best selling point rather than uptime imo.

*quote removed*

[AmigoJack]

with cloud server(s) the resources are drawn from several or more servers, a cluster if you will

Servers, that are not maintained by you. https://www.shodan.io/report/DCPO7BkV still reports almost 200k systems vulnerable to CVE-2014-0160 (aka "Heartbleed"), and most of them are cloud services. That's a tradeoff one should be aware of.

[Piscator]

heartbleed is still a thing ? thats pretty poor.