Last post Nov 03, 2009 07:51 PM by gerrylowry
Jan 29, 2009 02:31 PM|gerrylowry|LINK
OVERVIEW -- Two Requirements
(1) Internet hosted test environment
Purpose: to ensure that ASP.NET applications the I develop on my LAN
have a great chance to be deployed successfully,
with a minimum of tweaks (preferably zero tweaks)
regardless whether they are for myself or my customers enviroments.
(2) Internet hosted production environment
Like many of my peers, I'm hoping to have some applications running in production
on the Internet. Initially, because I'm poorer than the proverbial church mouse,
I'll require a company that can RELIABLY and ECONOMICALLY host the
"next great Internet killer application" (ya, sure) until some extraordinarily perceptive
and (financially) well endowed venture capitalist intervenes to help me realize
my dream of sufficient wealth (billions neither required nor rejected).
WHY I'M LOOKING -- my frustrations with 1&1
I've been registering domains with 1&1 for some time because my own IPP was imnsho
ripping me off on domain renewals. 1&1 (see above link) appeared to me to be
a good deal. It is not for the following reasons:
(a) URL structure. Although my US$20 per month account says I can host 200 external
domains and unlimited 1&1 domains, I can not do this in a sensible
way. For 1&1, I need a root tree and a redirect. Example:
if host = "aaa.com" or host =
Sadly, instead of
I am forced to have http://aaa.com/aaa/whatever.html
(b) to use ASP.NET, I must use an "application folder" but 1&1 allows
only FIVE application folders under my 1&1 "MS Developer" account.
[1&1 says "upgrade your package to a Dedicated Server package
to have unlimited application folders".] Since application folders do
not get inherited, it's possible to consume ALL five of them
for only one application!
apparently I can have unlimited ASP but not unlimited ASP.NET;
so much for truth in advertising.
(c) although 1&1 claims that the 1&1 MS Developer Package accounts are
"ideal for Web Developers", I was told they have no plans to host .Net 3.5
so I'm stuck at .Net 2.0 (which may prevent ASP.NET MVC, MoQ, xUnit, et cetera).
REQUIREMENTS -- as many as possible, preferably all this and more:
1. low cost (I know: you get what you pay for, sometimes more, frequently less).
2. decent, responsive technical support
3. ability to host a reasonable number of domains as if they are on separate servers;
i.e.; no need for silly root redirect
4. ability to set quota on e-mail accounts so a few user accounts do not consume
full allocation. (1&1 quotas every e-mail account at 2GB but maximum total
is 25GB). By being able to set reasonable quotas, a few users will not consume
the maxiumum total.
5. Keeping current with production and Beta MS technologies like ASP.NET MVC,
.Net 4.0 Beta, .Net 3.5, SQL 2008, IIS7, Silverlight, et cetera.
6. Ability to use other technologies: Perl, PHP, et cetera.
7. decent performance
Who are you using and why? Please share your opinions and recommendations.
Jan 29, 2009 02:36 PM|Curt_C|LINK
I've used WebHost4Life (http://www.webhost4life.com/default.asp?refid=darkfalz) for a long time and had great sucess. The price is very competative, the services are numerable and the control
panel is quite detailed.
I would absolutely use them for Test/Dev sites... 100%...
And I do use them for my Production sites. I've had years with well over 1/2 Million hits and it's been quite stable. You can always bump up to a dedicated host if you truly do get the next "internet killer application"
Jan 29, 2009 05:04 PM|HostingASPNet|LINK
IMHO with your requirements you should consider some VPS Windows Hosting account.
Jan 29, 2009 09:54 PM|kilko|LINK
I would recommend you to check
softsyshosting.com. I have been using them for quite some time now and they have been rock solid. Fantastic support and fast servers. Also, they seem to satisfy all of your requirements also.
Jan 30, 2009 10:14 AM|BobbyK43|LINK
I've been using [url=http://www.reliablesite.net/v3/shared.asp]reliablesite.net[/url] for a while and found that they really offer the most flexible setup for asp.net developers.
Jan 30, 2009 11:08 AM|TOMCIO|LINK
Sadly, instead of
I am forced to have http://aaa.com/aaa/whatever.html
Not really, with static html sites you can set destination folder and keep url (for every domain/site) like that
http://aaa.com/aaa/ - this URL structure is only for asp.net app and yes they limit number of app. to 5
Anyway shared hosting from 1&1 it is not that great .
Here are few hosts i use:
WebHost4life $10/m - they limit numer of sites to 8 and there is small extra fee
reliablesite.net $5/m there have reseller accounts
softsyshosting few $/m they offer reseller accounts too
and the one i really like:
CrystalTech $16.95 if you host more sites you will get discounts
Jan 31, 2009 04:25 PM|Danny117|LINK
Feb 02, 2009 12:04 AM|rtccroy|LINK
You might also consider the asp.net hosting plan at
They constantly upgrade the latest asp.net hosting platform. what i like the most is their 24x7 live chat support. :)
Feb 16, 2009 12:21 AM|ll02|LINK
Hey just read your message. I am in a very similar situation with 1&1. What was your outcome? Who did you pick, and how is it working out? I am curious how your rise to fame is going as mine is slowing starting out. What kind of apps have you been
Feb 16, 2009 08:53 AM|gerrylowry|LINK
I have not made a decision yet because I'm evaluting the responses
from the members here. From the suggestion of Curt Christianson,
I had a long online Q&A chat with a technician at WebHost4Life.
I will give them further serious consideration. 1&1 told me to forget
about .Net 3.5 so they're of little use to me. That and all the other
problems that I've described. I wish I had more time to investigate
everything now but at the moment I'm buried by ASP.NET MVC.
It will be a while until I actually make a decision. I promise
to post my results here.
Thank you to everyone for your suggestions.
regards ~~ gerry
Mar 02, 2009 10:40 AM|mystrymaster|LINK
Mar 02, 2009 10:57 AM|kilko|LINK
Yes. I have also heard some horrendous story about 1 and 1. It is hence better to go for some of the established hosts in the industry with proven track record.
Mar 02, 2009 11:42 AM|BobbyK43|LINK
I have chosen reliablesite.net from the recommendations of this forum.
Good choice [cool]
Nov 03, 2009 07:51 PM|gerrylowry|LINK
Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.
The sites you recommend are fine for light testing.
For production, a dedicated server may be the solution.
In my case, a dedicated server absolutely is the solution. If my application fails, then I am paying too much. However, if my application succeeds, it will send many thousands of opt in e-mail (not spam). One of the problems with a non dedicated
server is that the ISP may throttle your e-mail send rate. Another problem with a shared server is your performance may be impacted because of other users running something CPU intensive. Also, you may not get to pick your software.
The downside of a dedicated server is that configuration can be a nightmare.
I went with Windows 2008 R2 Web Edition and SQL Server 2008 Web Edition. You pay extra for these.
I also added and extra 1.5 GB of RAM and a second 80GB hard disk so I can have immediate in the box backup of my data.
I can not afford it but if I could, I would run a two disk system hardward controller card RAID 1.
The hosting company that I have chosen is corenetworks.net. So far their technical support has been very good. Their prices are quite excellent.
Compare 1&1 MS Developer shared account at US$20 vs dedicated server at US$75 ... the dedicated server is a 64-bit dual core Celeron. The first month was a killer ... I had to pay up front for the extra hard disk and extra RAM. Total c. US$380.
Over the long run, it will be worth it if I make money. Even not making money, just being in control of my system is worth it to me. Eventually, when I can make the time, I will remove my sites from 1&1 and shut down the MS Developer account.
I will probably continue to purchase domains from 1&1 because their prices are excellent.
Again, thank all of you for your input.