Seriously thinking about BH! Here my Requirements and Contents, can you handle them?!

[ebrahim.au]

Dear all,

First of all I apologize in advance for this long post. I have to write all details because I'm serious about having a good hosting service.

I'm really glad that I see this open place to allow people discuss there ideas and experiences. Thanks for all members, especially for the moderators..

Currently, I'm hosting my basic site with a hosting company that I don't prefer to mention it's name. There are many bad things about them;

- Large number of database errors.

- Untrained customer support staff because sometimes they give very silly and unbelievable replies, and sometimes they do not have enough knowledge to answer or solve simple problem.

- Their staff do not care enough. For example if they are stuck and don't know how to solve a problem, they just don't reply and leave tickets open.

- Without any prior notification, they perform sudden restores if something goes wrong in their servers. The bad thing is, sometimes they restore a 2 weeks old back-up, which means every 2 week old content will be deleted including hundreds of forum posts, emails, html pages, etc.

I have been with them around 3 years. As usually known about many hosting companies, the first 1 year is great, but I got the problem stated above at the beginning of the second year and I think that's enough, my visitors are leaving my site...

Anyway I'm planning to extend my site with more contents and I think the current hosting provider cannot handle my needs. My plan is to move during June 2008 so that I have enough time to look for a really good service. I'll leave you with following details.

=====================

::: My Site's Contents :::

1. A PHP-based forum : vBulletin® (via one MySql)

2. A PHP-based website (via more than one MySql)

3. A PHP-based upload/download system for visitor's public use (via one MySql)

4. A PHP-based guest book (may or may not use MySql)

5. A PHP-based photo gallery / album (via one MySql)


::: Technical Requirements :::

1. Expected amount of monthly bandwidth usage = 500GB - 750GB per month

2. Minimum disk space needed = 500GB

3. Minimum MySql databases needed = 25

4. Streaming support for audio and video files including Real products

5. Support for Flash, Shockwave, and all other common multi-media files

6. Ability to add our own MIME types

7. Daily extreme access to the vBulletin® forum via MySql (expected around 150 online users at the same time)

8. Daily heavy downloads of audio & video files

9. Unlimited URL redirects

10. Additional FTP accounts for at least 500 users/ sub-users

11. Domain pointing management for at least 5 domains (can be pointed as Add-on Domains OR Parked Domains)

12. Password-protection for directories

13. Reasonable email accounts

14. Backup and restore tools for the home directory and all other contents such as the MySql databases

15. Secure Shell (SSH) access

=====================

I would like also to add the following summary to get a feedback from you , please, about whether this is true or not

::: Positive things I heard and read about BlueHost :::

- They have very helpful, well-trained and friendly customer support staff.

- Most of technical features are great (High bandwidth, large storage, security, etc)

- According to their high quality service, their price is very cheap and competitive


::: Negative things I heard and read about BlueHost :::

- BlueHost is not perfect for MySql databases, even for normal usage (such as my case 150 users online at the same time). This will affect their CPU resourses and they will shut your site off!

- Because of the expected downtime in their MySql databases, BlueHost is not suitable for professional "real", reliable business. It is very good for little sites such as personal blogs.

- They will host your site is a server "Box", which can make you lucky or entirely unlucky. If that box is new and doesn't have many sites on it, it will be great. However, if it is busy and many sites on it, it will be bloody bad!

- A bad business strategy about the "Box" is that BlueHost hosts new customers in new "Boxes" which have no problems and no heavy load. By this customers will be satisfied having no issues during the first period. This means that they defiantly won't ask for cancellation or money refund, and they will continue with BlueHost. Once the time goes further, that "Box" will have much load and will be given to old customers, and then suffering begins!


=====================

I do not believe all of the negative reviews, but they make us think that BlueHost is tricky or kind of suspicious.

Most of reviews I read are great. And I am totally satisfied and think that BlueHost is the best choice. However, 2 things I'm still not sure about are; MySql databases efficiency AND the "Box" story. That's all.

Important note: I will not use horrible scripts in my site, they are all checked and validated via 3WC standards. Also I'll use the last updated version of vBulletin forum script. So there won't be serious problems from my side.

If you think my needs do not fit on BlueHost, is there any way to pay more so that they improve my service? For example insure that databases run with no problems + put my site on excellent box, etc.

But please if you think that my site won't go well with BlueHost anyway, please honestly let me know and do not recommend it to me, because I don't want to put BlueHost or myself in trouble. And believe me, I don't like to write bad experiences or negative reviews about others. That's WHY I ask before I sign up.

The point is : I really love BlueHost and I feel comfortable although I haven't signed up yet!

Thanks in advance ;)

[coolblue]

well, I have been with bluehost almost a year now, and I was with other company. without any exaggerating bluehost is the best hosting company on earth. Trust me, you will feel it when you need help. they will be there for you 24/7. My web sites run fast like if they were runing on localhost. I personally love it and will never change unless they change.

[ebrahim.au]

Thank you coolblue for your feedback :)

That's also what I usually hear about BH. But as I said;


However, 2 things I'm still not sure about are; MySql databases efficiency AND the "Box" story. That's all.

I don't know if they meet my requirements and contents, or not

Thanks again

[coolblue]

You are very welcome. I personally never had a problem with the Mysql. The box issue is something that will find out when every body replays to you.

[Evil_Dictator]

Out of curiosity, did you have a shared host before? or was it a VPS or dedicated box?

[coolblue]

Out of curiosity, did you have a shared host before? or was it a VPS or dedicated box?

It was shared.

[ebrahim.au]

Thanks Evil_Dictator,

That was a shared host.

Another thing I forgot to add about the current host, most features are similar to BlueHost (disk space, bandwidth, database number, etc). But these things won't make difference if I moved to BlueHost. What I'm looking for is the reliability, up time, and good support.

[magpie2419]

You should probably move to VPS your sites are getting too big for a shared hosting, Unfortunately Bluehost don't yet do VPS, ( I wish they did) But Bluehost is the best shared provider out there. Support is great, and I have had very little downtime or problems in nearly 3 years.

[Ferdinand]

8. Daily heavy downloads of audio & video files



I would check BH's policy in regard to copyrighted audio & video files. Also their TOS (http://www.bluehost.com/terms_of_service.html) is extremely strict in regard to the content (no nudes at all, e.g.). They threaten to cancel your account without notice, if you violate their rules.

Search this forum in regard to reports about hosting audio and video.

[felgall]

Audio and video files are okay provided that

1. you own the copyright on them and
2. you tell BlueHost about them in advance so that they can tell their automated process that deletes audio and video files to skip over the files you told them about.

[ebrahim.au]

I would check BH's policy in regard to copyrighted audio & video files. Also their TOS is extremely strict in regard to the content (no nudes at all, e.g.). They threaten to cancel your account without notice, if you violate their rules.


Hi Ferdinand, thank you for that note,

My site is officially approved and authorized by the Ministry of Information and Media in my country. Additionally, I won't illegally store anything that is copyrighted. Basically we produce the content of our site (audio and video coverage for local events regarding media, education, etc). We also produce our own audio albums, tracks and local exclusive recordings. We don't have any section for music or clips which produced by existing producers.

Also we don't use the site for nudity or violence or adult content, and we are tracked by the Ministry of Information and Media following a set of government rules.

Hopefully I don't get problems with BlueHost. And maybe I submit the documentation if required.

[ebrahim.au]

Audio and video files are okay provided that

1. you own the copyright on them and
2. you tell BlueHost about them in advance so that they can tell their automated process that deletes audio and video files to skip over the files you told them about.


Thank you for this great note. Sure I'll inform BlueHost in details

[ebrahim.au]

You should probably move to VPS your sites are getting too big for a shared hosting, Unfortunately Bluehost don't yet do VPS, ( I wish they did) But Bluehost is the best shared provider out there. Support is great, and I have had very little downtime or problems in nearly 3 years.

Ooh this is very sad :( I've just realized that BH doesn't have VPS.

Actually I'm in love with BlueHost :D lol ;) just kidding.

Anyway thanks friend for your advice. I'm still awaiting for others' opinions

[insidethehall]

If you're looking for reliability in terms of uptime, I would steer clear of BlueHost.

[Early Out]

If you're looking for reliability in terms of uptime, I would steer clear of BlueHost.
One user, out of hundreds of thousands, who's had some problems. This is the difference between "data" and "anecdotes."

Bargain hosts can't offer bulletproof uptime performance. The laws of physics and economics collide when you're getting hosting for $7 a month. If you want guaranteed 100% uptime, you're going to have to pay for it, and it's going to cost many times that. For uptime, BH does better than most bargain hosts.

[Ferdinand]

One user, out of hundreds of thousands, who's had some problems. This is the difference between "data" and "anecdotes."

Bargain hosts can't offer bulletproof uptime performance. The laws of physics and economics collide when you're getting hosting for $7 a month. If you want guaranteed 100% uptime, you're going to have to pay for it, and it's going to cost many times that. For uptime, BH does better than most bargain hosts.

In the recent months there where many post here in the forum about problems with BH's server performance. First it was the "Exceed CPU Errors" and more recently several servers having huge performance problems (including mine). Of course you can call tell this 'anecdotical', but reading this forum since almost two years I start to see a pattern which does not put BH in the best light.

I just hope that these only temporary growing pains as a result of the heavily increased number of hosted domains (see the CEO's blog)...

[Early Out]

Things are actually much more stable than they were a couple of years ago. If anything, BH is getting better.

The CPU quota problems rose to the surface, in part because BH had tightened the limits a bit too far. BH responded by relaxing the limits, and the complaints dropped off immediately. There are still occasional posts about it, but database indexing and script optimization is still the answer. It's a shared host, so users can't be given the ability to chew up all the CPU cycles on a box. BH lets you install any script you want, but it's up to the user to make sure that script plays well with others.

A couple of servers have had performance problems lately. One of them was the target of a DDoS attack. BH has gotten better at handling those, but they're still spectacularly disruptive.

On another server, the file system needed to be rebuilt, and BH discovered, to its horror, that one user had several million files, which turned the rebuild into a long, ugly marathon. They addressed that by starting to clamp down on the most abusive users. One tech went a little overboard, but the basic policy is one that benefits the vast bulk of the users.

Contrast this to some of the things that happened a couple of years ago. I remember a DDoS attack that took down most of the system, not just a box or two. There was an extended power outage, and it turned out that only some of the servers were on generator backups - the rest turned into dumb hunks of lifeless iron. There was a nameserver failure that took down absolutely everything. I'll take "now" over "then" anytime! :)

Please remember that BH is hosting over half-a-million domains. Even a few dozen people posting in here about problems really is just a tiny, tiny fraction of the user community.

[felgall]

The last count I saw posted was when BlueHost passed the 800,000 domain mark where Matt also reported that they now host 1.4% of the entire internet. The number of people having problems is approximately 0% (to several decimal places) compared to the total number of servers, accounts, and domains hosted by BlueHost. Of course that means nothing to the handful of people who are affected by problems but for the vast majority problems are few and far between.

In the 18 months I have been hosted here I have had my site offline three times for more than 10 minutes. One was for a couple of hours while they were physically moving all the servers to the new data centre and they had unexpected problems getting them all to power up again. The second was due to the nameserver problem where all the sites were still running just not accessible to the majority of the web for a couple of hours (setting up an appropriate entry in the hosts file on my computer allowed me to access the site directly so that I could sort out a few other issues on my site while that was happening). The third was caused by someone else on the server managing to get something to run way beyond the CPU limits that should have shut it down and that one site managed to steal all the resources from the other sites on the server until BlueHost worked out what site it was and deleted it. Total downtime for those three incidents was about 8 hours. Totalling up all the one and two minute downtimes over the 18 months might make another 3 hours giving a total up time of almost 99.94%. There are a few servers at BlueHost where there have been a lot more problems while many of the servers have only had the two problems during that time that affected everyone.

The important thing to remember is that it is shared hosting and so the resources of the server need to be shared with all the other sites hosted on that server. This means that the amount of CPU available is very small compared to what you would have available on dedicated hosting. Most of the problems people have are either because they have a badly written script that tries to use way more resources than it needs to, a large database that doesn't have all the indexes it needs to be able to locate the desired data efficiently, or has so many visitors that it ought to be on its own dedicated server. BlueHost try to limit the effect that the other accounts on the server have on your hosting but they are not always successful.

[ebrahim.au]

Thank you all for this nice discussion and I'm glad that you paid this attention to my thread.

After I've read all posts, I simply say: "nothing in the world is 100% perfect". There must be some unexpected situations that "human mind" cannot control. I've read about tens reviews about web hosting companies and NONE of them didn't have bad reviews or terrible stories.

Comparing BlueHost with other top hosing companies (such as IPOWER, Lunarpages, IX, Hostgator, etc) I can see that BlueHost is the best in regards to reliability and customer support satisfaction. Sometimes it's said that Host Monster is better as it's cheaper in some way, but finally I found that BH and HM all belong to the same owner, Matt, who pays more attention and more care for BH!

This morning I read horrible stories about BH here:
http://webhostinggeeks.com/user-reviews/index2.php?item_id=1
But I don't think all of them completely true. And I think some of those users are beginners who treat any difficulty as major problem!

Anyway, back to my point of posting this thread, I'll say:

If I decided to get a shared host, I would absolutely and only go with BlueHost.

Now my question is:

According to the requirements I posted at the beginning, do you recommend that I go with BlueHost? Or with a VPS from somewhere else?

Someone might say: "it depends on your usage of databases on the CPU".
I would say, my usage will be same as I said; validated codes, well-known and paid scripts in the market (latest vBulletin®), online users = 150 at a given time.

Now what's your advice, please? :confused: I am really confused.

[magpie2419]

Thank you all for this nice discussion and I'm glad that you paid this attention to my thread.

After I've read all posts, I simply say: "nothing in the world is 100% perfect". There must be some unexpected situations that "human mind" cannot control. I've read about tens reviews about web hosting companies and NONE of them didn't have bad reviews or terrible stories.

Comparing BlueHost with other top hosing companies (such as IPOWER, Lunarpages, IX, Hostgator, etc) I can see that BlueHost is the best in regards to reliability and customer support satisfaction. Sometimes it's said that Host Monster is better as it's cheaper in some way, but finally I found that BH and HM all belong to the same owner, Matt, who pays more attention and more care for BH!

This morning I read horrible stories about BH here:
http://webhostinggeeks.com/user-reviews/index2.php?item_id=1
But I don't think all of them completely true. And I think some of those users are beginners who treat any difficulty as major problem!

Anyway, back to my point of posting this thread, I'll say:

If I decided to get a shared host, I would absolutely and only go with BlueHost.

Now my question is:

According to the requirements I posted at the beginning, do you recommend that I go with BlueHost? Or with a VPS from somewhere else?

Someone might say: "it depends on your usage of databases on the CPU".
I would say, my usage will be same as I said; validated codes, well-known and paid scripts in the market (latest vBulletin®), online users = 150 at a given time.

Now what's your advice, please? :confused: I am really confused.


Hmm Interesting link I had no idea so many people were unhappy with Bluehost, this view is certainly not reflected in these forums.

[Early Out]

A quick run through the bad reviews on that site reveals a similar pattern to what we see here.


A few are people who've been unlucky enough to be on one of the handful of servers that have had problems.
A few are people who failed to figure out that the ticket system is not for urgent problems.
A few are people who thought they were buying a web site ("I signed up for hosting. When do I get my home page?").
A few are people who didn't read the terms of service ("My account was suspended for having a bunch of videos that I copied from rented DVDs, and was offering to my friends.").
A few are people who weren't informed about things like server moves and configuration changes in advance (to me, the most legitimate complaint about BH - they often don't warn you about stuff like this).
A few are people who can't accept the kinds of restrictions that are necessary on a shared host (no unlimited CPU time, no catchall email addresses, etc.).
A few are people who didn't grasp that you get the lowest rate not for committing to a two-year agreement, but for actually paying for two years up front.
A few are people who tried to use Live Chat during a fairly widespread crisis, or on Xmas day, and didn't get an immediate response.
A few are people who expect BH to give things away ("I bought a dedicated IP - how come I didn't get a different dedicated IP for each of my addon domains, without having to pay anything extra?")


No real surprises, frankly. Mostly the same kind of stuff we see in here. In here, however, the "just here to complain" threads go away, since this isn't a webhost review site. It's a help forum, and a lot of these kinds of posts don't really help much of anyone, particulary when they're just rants.

[ebrahim.au]

A quick run through the bad reviews on that site reveals a similar pattern to what we see here.
A few are people who've been unlucky enough to be on one of the handful of servers that have had problems.
A few are people who failed to figure out that the ticket system is not for urgent problems.
A few are people who thought they were buying a web site ("I signed up for hosting. When do I get my home page?").
A few are people who didn't read the terms of service ("My account was suspended for having a bunch of videos that I copied from rented DVDs, and was offering to my friends.").
A few are people who weren't informed about things like server moves and configuration changes in advance (to me, the most legitimate complaint about BH - they often don't warn you about stuff like this).
A few are people who can't accept the kinds of restrictions that are necessary on a shared host (no unlimited CPU time, no catchall email addresses, etc.).
A few are people who didn't grasp that you get the lowest rate not for committing to a two-year agreement, but for actually paying for two years up front.
A few are people who tried to use Live Chat during a fairly widespread crisis, or on Xmas day, and didn't get an immediate response.
A few are people who expect BH to give things away ("I bought a dedicated IP - how come I didn't get a different dedicated IP for each of my addon domains, without having to pay anything extra?")

Thank you very much, actually that's nice analysis. I first went through some of them and believed everything, but then I started feeling unsure about those users, and as I said in post#19 that they might be "beginners" who do not know how to deal with a hosting service from all its sides.


In here, however, the "just here to complain" threads go away, since this isn't a webhost review site. It's a help forum, and a lot of these kinds of posts don't really help much of anyone, particulary when they're just rants.

Ok, let's limit what we are talking about by not talking about the "review" stuff. Let's focus on my point why I posted this thread, and I'm repeating what I asked in post#19:



Anyway, back to my point of posting this thread, I'll say:

If I decided to get a shared host, I would absolutely and only go with BlueHost.

Now my question is:

According to the requirements I posted at the beginning, do you recommend that I go with BlueHost? Or with a VPS from somewhere else?

Someone might say: "it depends on your usage of databases on the CPU".
I would say, my usage will be same as I said; validated codes, well-known and paid scripts in the market (latest vBulletin®), online users = 150 at a given time.

Now what's your advice, please? :confused: I am really confused.


Anyone help please ???

[Early Out]

I think you're asking for a definitive reply to a question that no one here can answer. We're all just users, and none of us is running exactly the same things you want to host. There are so many variables involved, it's impossible to predict whether all of your various sites and applications will run happily on BH. The only way to find out is to sign up, load up your stuff, and see what happens.

If you start running into performance problems, then it's clear that you need a VPS. BH doesn't offer that option, but if you need to leave BH, you can get a prorated refund for any unused portion of the fee.

[coolblue]

I think that you forgot to mention "few of them might be competitor that want to ruin BH name." because there is no prof of purchase before posting.

[ebrahim.au]

Thanks again Early Out that you keep tracking my problem and helping me.


I think you're asking for a definitive reply to a question that no one here can answer.

Actually this partially correct but not totally. I don't mean that I need a very absolute, accurate statistical answer, but at least strong assumptions according to what you guys experience form BH customers (including customers in this forum, technical support staff, or any one involved in BH). For example, for someone who runs a very active well-coded forum and a big website on BH servers can at least roughly say that BH will or will not run my site nicely.

(sorry my English is bad, but I hope you got what I mean)

[ebrahim.au]

I think that you forgot to mention "few of them might be competitor that want to ruin BH name." because there is no prof of purchase before posting.

;)

Thanks mate for being here

[felgall]

Perhaps the thing to do is to try BlueHost and see if it can handle your site. The worst that can happen is that you find out that it can't and have to go for dedicated hosting. BlueHost give a full refund if you leave within the first 30 days so all it would cost you is the downtime while moving to the dedicated hosting.

[ebrahim.au]

Perhaps the thing to do is to try BlueHost and see if it can handle your site. The worst that can happen is that you find out that it can't and have to go for dedicated hosting. BlueHost give a full refund if you leave within the first 30 days so all it would cost you is the downtime while moving to the dedicated hosting.

Thanks mate,

I think that's what I might do, I have no way.

But I will keep going in this thread until June maybe I get more recommendations.

Why I don't prefer to try the service? Because my site won't be extremely busy at the beginning. I'm re-openning an all new website (I'm not just transferring my stuff from the old provider to BlueHost, but actually initiating a new website). So it will be like canceling my old business and opening it in a new design, domain, contents, layout, logo, etc.

Therefore, if the site is really new, it will take some time to be advertised. This means that I won't get the expected site load / number of visitors during the first few months.

Yes at the first 30 day I'll be able to address the bandwidth, disk storage, upload and download speed, the overall uptime, scripting issues, etc, but particularly NOT the CPU database uses.

[ebrahim.au]

Guys, do you know if bluehost offers increasing the CPU for databases if extra price is paid?

I've just found this company:

http://iweb.com/web-hosting

The say below:

The ideal upgrade for resource intensive web sites, the MySQL vBox comes in 256MB or 512MB versions and provides you with your fully managed, dedicated MySQL database hosting environment. Ease and delay your transition from shared to dedicated, thanks to the vBox.

and even when you go to sign up, there are some options to increase the MySql resources usage and the price is also increased in monthly basis:

http://iweb.com/web-hosting/compare/

Do you know if BlueHost offers such options???

[Early Out]

BH is pretty much a "one plan fits all" company. There was a "higher CPU" plan, but I think they dropped it when they increased the CPU usage quotas on all the boxes. I haven't heard any mention of it in many, many months, and there isn't a word about it on the BH site (at least not that I can find).

They probably discovered that if someone has poorly optimized code or poorly indexed databases, doubling or tripling his CPU usage quota wasn't going to fix the problem. It may also be that the problem abated a lot when they migrated folks to the newer, faster servers, and switched to PHP5.

[SimCity]

If you are going to have extensive downloading of video/audio files - make sure to watch your bandwidth, that can be eaten fast!

If it skyrockets, you may need a dedi..

Sim

http://rofltshirts.info/host.gif