Which one is better??IMO, those are 2 entirely different providers. Rackspace beats almost all competition. LW is a great company, I've used them, but RS definitely offers more. Although, they charge a lot more at the same time.well if I just want to host 2-3 sites with one vbulletin forums, and phplist.RS is when your websites are critical and you need 100% uptime. If your forum/sites are ok with 99% uptime then most managed hosting companies can offer it. Also you may consider to get an unmanaged dedicated server and get a 3rd party company to manage it.You only want to host 2-3 sites so a server without control panel is better as control panels use server resources (CPU/Ram).OP, don't believe good comments on Rackspace; posters are likely never host with RS before, maybe even never inquire about server at all. Let me tell you that these RS people are real snobbish. They treat you like you are owned by them. Rackspace? You are required to call them personally to arrange for their critical solutions with most likely 36-month contract. Walk there only if you're happy to stand among big clients like iNET of WHT, then you'll get the showoff "Host by Rackspace" on the bottom-left of every page. It look cool to these people--members of WHT.You only want to host 2-3 sites so a server without control panel is better as control panels use server resources (CPU/Ram).Control panel will save you time configuring web sites, adding and removing them. Should you want to add email addresses, viewing stats, managing databases, uploading files, etc, you will find control panel a life saver, even you're hosting just 2-3 sites.
You don't want to SSH server everytime you need to change something, do you?I wrote a script to do all these for the servers I manage:Syntax: ./user.sh create domain.gr password planSyntax: ./user.sh redirect domain-new.gr domain-old.grSyntax: ./user.sh delete domain.grSyntax: ./user.sh status domain.grSyntax: ./user.sh mail add <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> passwordSyntax: ./user.sh mail forward <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e -->: ./user.sh mail del <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> find it faster to ssh2 to a server and type a command than waiting a control panel page to load. And as the server the OP is looking is managed then he doesn't need to do these things himself, right?Great ideas indeed! Just curious, how long would it take you to setup everything for a new domain? (like first adding domain, dns records, mail addresses, ftp, ftp user's previleges, awstats for the domain)From experience, if you need the same level of management (proactive patching etc). Liquidweb will be more economical. However we do prefer the Rackspace network.well for somebody who is quite ignorant about tech and dont even understand about DNS or ssh or anything which provider will be best , like somebody who just migrate site and manage itwell for somebody who is quite ignorant about tech and dont even understand about DNS or ssh or anything which provider will be best , like somebody who just migrate site and manage itPerhaps Rackspace with the "Intensive" management plan would do the trick for you. LiquidWeb, in contrast, will not.Several clients for whom I consult have used both services and both are great companies where you most likely wouldn't have any problems. There is obviously, as others have indicated, a very big price difference between the two. If that's an issue, then liquidweb may be more appropriate. And since liquidweb is opening a second datacenter, I wouldn't be surprised if they offered some great sales or enticing offers to bring in new business..However, I can imagine that rackspace would be more intensely managed given the price and type of management packages they offer. although with a decent control panel, you can get by as a novie.I'm trying to read about liquidweb on their website but it is painfully slow. what does it say about a company when their own website crawls? If they can't take care of themselves...I'm trying to read about liquidweb on their website but it is painfully slow. what does it say about a company when their own website crawls? If they can't take care of themselves...
Their site is loading fast for me right now...perhaps it was just maintenance?I have not been with either of them but my vote would go for Liquidweb. Good luck on your hunt though I hope you find it happy where ever you go and stay happy. Best of luck to you!
Frimon86I have not been with either of them but my vote would go for Liquidweb. Good luck on your hunt though I hope you find it happy where ever you go and stay happy. Best of luck to you!
Frimon86
Any reason why you choose LiquidWeb?Their site is loading fast for me right now...perhaps it was just maintenance?the next day and still the same problem. minutes go by without the page being fully rendered. i am on the west coast, are they in russia?:laugh:I am seeing a tad bit of slow loading. I did not notice this when I was on there side the other day.
Any thoughts if this actually means something or am I noticing the slight load time because someone mentioned it!?!hands down the best backend support there is , hats off to the LW crew and ownershipI don't see any pricing for Rackspace, am curious to there pricing. It seems they offer Solutions instead of just servers. Like seperate DB/Web servers etc.I don't see any pricing for Rackspace, am curious to there pricing. It seems they offer Solutions instead of just servers. Like seperate DB/Web servers etc.A lesson i've learned in life is "If there is no price, its to expensive for me"
But i to would like to see their pricing to compare it around.I don't see any pricing for Rackspace, am curious to there pricing. It seems they offer Solutions instead of just servers. Like seperate DB/Web servers etc.
They normally do a custom quote for you. You have to contact them and tell them what you are looking for. They will get back to you a few hours later or next day with a long proposal and info about their company and network.
I do like Liquid Web, their service is good enough, good management and so far the network seems ok also.Rackspace is offering 100% network uptimeOP, don't believe good comments on Rackspace; posters are likely never host with RS before, maybe even never inquire about server at all. Let me tell you that these RS people are real snobbish. They treat you like you are owned by them. Rackspace? You are required to call them personally to arrange for their critical solutions with most likely 36-month contract. Walk there only if you're happy to stand among big clients like iNET of WHT, then you'll get the showoff "Host by Rackspace" on the bottom-left of every page. It look cool to these people--members of WHT.Sorry, I have two dedicated servers with RacksSpace. I have had them to almost two years..... Never had an issue (something that was their fault) once I had an issue (that was my fault and they were there to help past midnight with in 5 to 10 minutes of the call going through I had three techs (two of them level 3) telling me they sorted out my fault and told me a better way of doing it. One of my sites gets over 350Gb a month of BW and not once it went down (please knock on wood) :smokin:We chose LiquidWeb about 2 years ago over RackSpace due to the cost. LW was less than half.
We have been super pleased with LW and i'm about to order another cPanel server there. Support and management has been outstanding.I guess the question to ask since you are only looking to host a few sites - though they are forums and could be critical - is what exactly sort of budget did you have set up for the server? Depending on what you are willing to spend monthly will help decide where you should look.I was quoted $850 a month from Rackspace for a dual Xeon, 2 GB, 300 GB Raid 1 managed server. Is that pretty standard from RS? Does the service justify incredibly high prices like that?I was quoted $850 a month from Rackspace for a dual Xeon, 2 GB, 300 GB Raid 1 managed server. Is that pretty standard from RS? Does the service justify incredibly high prices like that?
I don't personally think so. My experience with a similar server at Liquid Web for much less cost has been great. You should strongly consider them.I agree. You can get the same box at LW for practically half of what you spend at RackSpace. Rackspace is for larger companies looking for the stability of their network that can not afford to have 0 downtime. So you pay big bucks to get in that club.I have used both, my personal opinion is LW had better uptime, I went almost 2 years without noticable downtime (maybe a few minutes here and there). In the month and a half I have been with RS I have had 45 minutes downtime.
I will need more time to get a better judgement though.LW Great stuff.I just talked to a Rackspace sales rep and he told me their servers start out at around $350/month. Too much for me...we have 30 dual servers with liquid, hands down the best we are in 5 other centers and have had issues, go lwnowadays we found two type of comparisons in this forum section ...
1. liquidweb vs rackspace
2. layeredtech vs softlayer
That seems to be trend these days I do agree. However - if you will notice - many of the comparisions are coming from new members so they might not know of all the other wonderfu opportunities out there with other providers.Any reason why you choose LiquidWeb?
Simply put, price point.I've tried both and I like Rackspace above and beyond Liquidweb.i like them bothLiquidWeb is a good company if you want shared services or a very basic server. If you intend on relying on their support they have somewhat limited resources, since they only have about 40 employees.
If you look around the site you can find outmore about them. For example: according to the Liquidweb CEO, "We are a Linux-based company. I've recruited most of my employees from Linux user groups."
If you have a Windows config you will be much better off with Rackspace.LiquidWeb is a good company if you want shared services or a very basic server. If you intend on relying on their support they have somewhat limited resources, since they only have about 40 employees.
If you look around the site you can find outmore about them. For example: according to the Liquidweb CEO, "We are a Linux-based company. I've recruited most of my employees from Linux user groups."
If you have a Windows config you will be much better off with Rackspace.
40 employees is not 'limited'. Rackspace obviously has more employees because they have more customers. It's a proportion.
LiquidWeb does not actually offer Windows configs, as far as I know....
Lastly, what is your experience with LiquidWeb?I don't have any hosting experience with LiquidWeb, my comments are based on what I found at their site.
A small company can certianly provide decent support, but the depth of that support depends on how many people are actually support techs. If they have 40 employees you can chop off 5-10 for non technical roles (execs, sales, admins, etc). That would leave 30 for builds, installs and support. They claim 15,000 web sites... that's a crazy tech to customer ratio. That also tells me that they host mainly shared sites.
I see Windows as an option for their dedicated servers. Personally I wouldn't go with them since they are really a Linux-focused provider.
Again, small is not bad. It just depends on how much support you expect to recieve and whether or not the company has the resources to meet your needs 24x7. Support is not just o/s experts. It has to do with networking, security, databases, etc. Techs get sick, take vacations, etc.I don't have any hosting experience with LiquidWeb, my comments are based on what I found at their site.You certainly act like you have experience with them.A small company can certianly provide decent support, but the depth of that support depends on how many people are actually support techs. If they have 40 employees you can chop off 5-10 for non technical roles (execs, sales, admins, etc). That would leave 30 for builds, installs and support. They claim 15,000 web sites... that's a crazy tech to customer ratio. That also tells me that they host mainly shared sites.On the topic of the number of employees, I don't see any mention of 40. All I see is this:We're Hiring With the recent opening of our 2nd state of the art 32,000 square foot datacenter we are expecting to add 100 new high tech jobs over the next several months. This growth has created exciting and challenging new career opportunities for motivated individuals looking for advancement. Liquid Web offices are located in Lansing, Michigan.<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://liquidweb.com/about/index.htmIf">http://liquidweb.com/about/index.htmIf</a><!-- m --> they are looking to hire 100 more employees, I'm sure they have more than 40 at this point.They do claim to have 15,000 clients. But Rackspace clients tend to have multi-server clustered setups, which will obviously result in more servers, and more techs required. These days you can place 1,000-1,500 shared clients on one server without too much of a negative effect (on a high-end, highly optimized box). So, yes, perhaps a good portion of those clients are shared hosting customers. If so, then you can only need to manage 1 server to take care of a large number of clients, as opposed to Rackspace clients which are generally more demanding.I see Windows as an option for their dedicated servers. Personally I wouldn't go with them since they are really a Linux-focused provider.I stand corrected as far as Windows being an option. Can you please link me to the CEO's statement about how most of the employees are from linux groups? I'm sure at this point, when they offer managed Windows hosting, they have techs that are well versed in Windows available 24x7.Again, small is not bad. It just depends on how much support you expect to recieve and whether or not the company has the resources to meet your needs 24x7.Yes, and you cannot claim that LiquidWeb is unterstaffed, or has a lack of resources, because you have never used them.Support is not just o/s experts.It's not, but for LiquidWeb, I guarantee you that 90% of the support inquiries are OS related. There isn't that much of a different between a network engineer and a software engineer, as the roles overlap quite a bit when you start getting into more advanced stuff, e.g. programming. Networking equipment (e.g. routers) are based on software, FYI.Liquidweb CEO quote: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thewhir.com/features/science-recruiting.cfm">http://www.thewhir.com/features/science-recruiting.cfm</a><!-- m -->
The Whir (Web Hosting Industry Review) is a great site to find articles and press releases about various hosting companies.
They look to be growing, that's a good thing. Hopefully this will enable them to provide good service. Everyone busines starts small. It's just a personal decision each business leader needs to make re: hosting. They must weigh the value that larger companies may offer over lesser-staffed companies and compare it with the cost differences. Larger companies tend to have worked out the kinks that smaller companies have yet to find out about. On the other hand, smaller companies don't deal with scaling issues that larger companies usually have to deal with. Fortunately I have not experienced any scaling issues at Rackspace.
To each his own.These days you can place 1,000-1,500 shared clients on one server without too much of a negative effect (on a high-end, highly optimized box).
Yes, this is technically possible. But if you are a business and your site has anything to do with your corporate image or revenue, you would be foolish to host your company site on such a configuration. Shared hosting, especially to the extreme you suggest above, is NOT what any respectable business owner would pursue. Why?
1) Resources: If you are one of 1,000 customers on a single server you are going to get 1/1000 of the processor, the memory and the NIC throughput. Sure, 8 dual-core procs, 32GB RAM and dual gig NICs are great, but 1/1000 of these pieces is quite lame. Yes, not everyone uses the same amount of resources, but this leads to my second concern..
2) Availability: If you have a shared site and just one customer creates a renegade process or memory leak, the box could suffer and 1000 customers start getting cranky due to poor performance. Or, what if just one of those customers gets ddos'd by a disgruntled employee or hated enemy? The box is toast. What about a customer uploading bad code that causes an unplanned maintenance window? Reboot = 1,000 reboots.
The odds of something going wrong on a shared server are far too great to risk a business on. Those that do so usually end up here whining that so-and-so host sucks because they couldn't do X or their hardware did Y. It's never cost, it's always the providers fault, right? ;-) "This steak tastes like crap!" Well, maybe it's because you are paying for a cheeseburger and expecting a t-bone.
As I've said before, you get what you pay for in this industry.Yes, this is technically possible. But if you are a business and your site has anything to do with your corporate image or revenue, you would be foolish to host your company site on such a configuration. Shared hosting, especially to the extreme you suggest above, is NOT what any respectable business owner would pursue. Why?
1) Resources: If you are one of 1,000 customers on a single server you are going to get 1/1000 of the processor, the memory and the NIC throughput. Sure, 8 dual-core procs, 32GB RAM and dual gig NICs are great, but 1/1000 of these pieces is quite lame. Yes, not everyone uses the same amount of resources, but this leads to my second concern..
2) Availability: If you have a shared site and just one customer creates a renegade process or memory leak, the box could suffer and 1000 customers start getting cranky due to poor performance. Or, what if just one of those customers gets ddos'd by a disgruntled employee or hated enemy? The box is toast. What about a customer uploading bad code that causes an unplanned maintenance window? Reboot = 1,000 reboots.
The odds of something going wrong on a shared server are far too great to risk a business on. Those that do so usually end up here whining that so-and-so host sucks because they couldn't do X or their hardware did Y. It's never cost, it's always the providers fault, right? ;-) "This steak tastes like crap!" Well, maybe it's because you are paying for a cheeseburger and expecting a t-bone.
As I've said before, you get what you pay for in this industry.
Well, I didn't want this discussion to drift into shared hosting, as that isn't what the topic is about. This topic is about comparing Rackspace and LiquidWeb.
I hate to break it to you, but have you managed servers with thousands of sites on them? I have, and things work a lot better than you describe.I actually had been considering rackspace and liquid web for a managed server for a couple of weeks. RACK SPACE:My impression is that rackspace is very impressive but the costs are high and their "managed" hosting is not really so managed. I came to this conclusion after talking to the rep and a lvl 3 tech in a conference shortly before my decision. The rep was very nice and so was the tech but they acted like they were going to nickle and dime me to death for anything I wanted. For example I just wanted a basic software firewall installed, or iptables installed and the rep said they could do it, but it took getting the tech on the line and he said everything would be $75 a half hour, and it was the same for any technical stuff, they wanted to be paid on anything that would take a tech more than 2 or 3 minutes over the phone. Not so managed I think....However, rackspace does claim to use only 40% of their bandwidth at a time (rackspace says most providers use 80%-90%) and are connection to 7 major backbones. LIQUIDWEB:They are much more reasonably priced and you do get more server for your money with them. They also seem to have very knowledgable people working for them, even their first level techs are quite knowledgeable. They install basic software such as a firewall on your server and are truely managed, when you ask a question or need some basic help they are glad to help. As far as bandwidth I don't know how much of their available bandwidth they are actually using, but they are connected to 3 major backbones and with the exception of the savvis network in my region slowing down occasionally, thir connections are pretty fast from what I can tell. Needless to say I decided to go with liquid web and after about a week of being with them, I'd say I'm a very happy customer thus far. :agree:layer0, I am familiar with what RS calls "intensive" management, but what does this mean for you? What advanced services are important for you and how have they not been met in the past?I've used both Rackspace and LiquidWeb and will do my best to offer impressions if that is still of interest.I use LW and everything has been super so far. Excellent tech support. Have fixed anything I broke, very quickly and without making me feel like a dummy. As far as not using a control panel, if you don't use cPanel, you are agreeing to self manage your server accourding to the LW website. I have the $60 vps and run my vbulletin forum on it. I'm pretty low traffic at the moment but growing steadily. If I need to upgrade servers I will be sticking with them. One thing that I really like about them is that just because I only spend $60, they don't make me feel like a $60/month kind of customer. They always treat me with respect and make me feel like a valued customer. On the other hand when I looked into Rackspace they told me $600/month for a really basic p4 server. And they told me it would be several hundred extra to set it up and harden it. I'm sure rackspace is a great company, but I don't think that small guys are their target customer. The person I talked to on the live chat there was very condescending and not very helpful once they found out I wasn't in the $600/month price range. Keep up the great work LiquidwebYou are welcome.LiquidWeb is a good company if you want shared services or a very basic server. If you intend on relying on their support they have somewhat limited resources, since they only have about 40 employees. If you look around the site you can find outmore about them. For example: according to the Liquidweb CEO, "We are a Linux-based company. I've recruited most of my employees from Linux user groups." If you have a Windows config you will be much better off with Rackspace. sn1per, Do you have a specific experience with our company's resources b/c we employ more than 40 people? We are adding people as I type. If your only estimate of a hosting company's support structure is based on the # of employees we have, and your estimate is off, what other factors do you look for in hosting resources? Additionally, do you have a any specific experiences with our Dedicated Windows Hosting, b/c I am a Microsoft guy myself, and it would be helpful if you could elaborate on your statement.If you have specific experiences please let me know and we'll look into them immediately.
You don't want to SSH server everytime you need to change something, do you?I wrote a script to do all these for the servers I manage:Syntax: ./user.sh create domain.gr password planSyntax: ./user.sh redirect domain-new.gr domain-old.grSyntax: ./user.sh delete domain.grSyntax: ./user.sh status domain.grSyntax: ./user.sh mail add <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> passwordSyntax: ./user.sh mail forward <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e -->: ./user.sh mail del <!-- e --><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><!-- e --> find it faster to ssh2 to a server and type a command than waiting a control panel page to load. And as the server the OP is looking is managed then he doesn't need to do these things himself, right?Great ideas indeed! Just curious, how long would it take you to setup everything for a new domain? (like first adding domain, dns records, mail addresses, ftp, ftp user's previleges, awstats for the domain)From experience, if you need the same level of management (proactive patching etc). Liquidweb will be more economical. However we do prefer the Rackspace network.well for somebody who is quite ignorant about tech and dont even understand about DNS or ssh or anything which provider will be best , like somebody who just migrate site and manage itwell for somebody who is quite ignorant about tech and dont even understand about DNS or ssh or anything which provider will be best , like somebody who just migrate site and manage itPerhaps Rackspace with the "Intensive" management plan would do the trick for you. LiquidWeb, in contrast, will not.Several clients for whom I consult have used both services and both are great companies where you most likely wouldn't have any problems. There is obviously, as others have indicated, a very big price difference between the two. If that's an issue, then liquidweb may be more appropriate. And since liquidweb is opening a second datacenter, I wouldn't be surprised if they offered some great sales or enticing offers to bring in new business..However, I can imagine that rackspace would be more intensely managed given the price and type of management packages they offer. although with a decent control panel, you can get by as a novie.I'm trying to read about liquidweb on their website but it is painfully slow. what does it say about a company when their own website crawls? If they can't take care of themselves...I'm trying to read about liquidweb on their website but it is painfully slow. what does it say about a company when their own website crawls? If they can't take care of themselves...
Their site is loading fast for me right now...perhaps it was just maintenance?I have not been with either of them but my vote would go for Liquidweb. Good luck on your hunt though I hope you find it happy where ever you go and stay happy. Best of luck to you!
Frimon86I have not been with either of them but my vote would go for Liquidweb. Good luck on your hunt though I hope you find it happy where ever you go and stay happy. Best of luck to you!
Frimon86
Any reason why you choose LiquidWeb?Their site is loading fast for me right now...perhaps it was just maintenance?the next day and still the same problem. minutes go by without the page being fully rendered. i am on the west coast, are they in russia?:laugh:I am seeing a tad bit of slow loading. I did not notice this when I was on there side the other day.
Any thoughts if this actually means something or am I noticing the slight load time because someone mentioned it!?!hands down the best backend support there is , hats off to the LW crew and ownershipI don't see any pricing for Rackspace, am curious to there pricing. It seems they offer Solutions instead of just servers. Like seperate DB/Web servers etc.I don't see any pricing for Rackspace, am curious to there pricing. It seems they offer Solutions instead of just servers. Like seperate DB/Web servers etc.A lesson i've learned in life is "If there is no price, its to expensive for me"
But i to would like to see their pricing to compare it around.I don't see any pricing for Rackspace, am curious to there pricing. It seems they offer Solutions instead of just servers. Like seperate DB/Web servers etc.They normally do a custom quote for you. You have to contact them and tell them what you are looking for. They will get back to you a few hours later or next day with a long proposal and info about their company and network.
I do like Liquid Web, their service is good enough, good management and so far the network seems ok also.Rackspace is offering 100% network uptimeOP, don't believe good comments on Rackspace; posters are likely never host with RS before, maybe even never inquire about server at all. Let me tell you that these RS people are real snobbish. They treat you like you are owned by them. Rackspace? You are required to call them personally to arrange for their critical solutions with most likely 36-month contract. Walk there only if you're happy to stand among big clients like iNET of WHT, then you'll get the showoff "Host by Rackspace" on the bottom-left of every page. It look cool to these people--members of WHT.Sorry, I have two dedicated servers with RacksSpace. I have had them to almost two years..... Never had an issue (something that was their fault) once I had an issue (that was my fault and they were there to help past midnight with in 5 to 10 minutes of the call going through I had three techs (two of them level 3) telling me they sorted out my fault and told me a better way of doing it. One of my sites gets over 350Gb a month of BW and not once it went down (please knock on wood) :smokin:We chose LiquidWeb about 2 years ago over RackSpace due to the cost. LW was less than half.
We have been super pleased with LW and i'm about to order another cPanel server there. Support and management has been outstanding.I guess the question to ask since you are only looking to host a few sites - though they are forums and could be critical - is what exactly sort of budget did you have set up for the server? Depending on what you are willing to spend monthly will help decide where you should look.I was quoted $850 a month from Rackspace for a dual Xeon, 2 GB, 300 GB Raid 1 managed server. Is that pretty standard from RS? Does the service justify incredibly high prices like that?I was quoted $850 a month from Rackspace for a dual Xeon, 2 GB, 300 GB Raid 1 managed server. Is that pretty standard from RS? Does the service justify incredibly high prices like that?
I don't personally think so. My experience with a similar server at Liquid Web for much less cost has been great. You should strongly consider them.I agree. You can get the same box at LW for practically half of what you spend at RackSpace. Rackspace is for larger companies looking for the stability of their network that can not afford to have 0 downtime. So you pay big bucks to get in that club.I have used both, my personal opinion is LW had better uptime, I went almost 2 years without noticable downtime (maybe a few minutes here and there). In the month and a half I have been with RS I have had 45 minutes downtime.
I will need more time to get a better judgement though.LW
Great stuff.I just talked to a Rackspace sales rep and he told me their servers start out at around $350/month. Too much for me...we have 30 dual servers with liquid, hands down the best we are in 5 other centers and have had issues, go lwnowadays we found two type of comparisons in this forum section ...1. liquidweb vs rackspace
2. layeredtech vs softlayer
That seems to be trend these days I do agree. However - if you will notice - many of the comparisions are coming from new members so they might not know of all the other wonderfu opportunities out there with other providers.Any reason why you choose LiquidWeb?Simply put, price point.I've tried both and I like Rackspace above and beyond Liquidweb.i like them bothLiquidWeb is a good company if you want shared services or a very basic server. If you intend on relying on their support they have somewhat limited resources, since they only have about 40 employees.
If you look around the site you can find outmore about them. For example: according to the Liquidweb CEO, "We are a Linux-based company. I've recruited most of my employees from Linux user groups."
If you have a Windows config you will be much better off with Rackspace.LiquidWeb is a good company if you want shared services or a very basic server. If you intend on relying on their support they have somewhat limited resources, since they only have about 40 employees.
If you look around the site you can find outmore about them. For example: according to the Liquidweb CEO, "We are a Linux-based company. I've recruited most of my employees from Linux user groups."
If you have a Windows config you will be much better off with Rackspace.
40 employees is not 'limited'. Rackspace obviously has more employees because they have more customers. It's a proportion.
LiquidWeb does not actually offer Windows configs, as far as I know....
Lastly, what is your experience with LiquidWeb?I don't have any hosting experience with LiquidWeb, my comments are based on what I found at their site.
A small company can certianly provide decent support, but the depth of that support depends on how many people are actually support techs. If they have 40 employees you can chop off 5-10 for non technical roles (execs, sales, admins, etc). That would leave 30 for builds, installs and support. They claim 15,000 web sites... that's a crazy tech to customer ratio. That also tells me that they host mainly shared sites.
I see Windows as an option for their dedicated servers. Personally I wouldn't go with them since they are really a Linux-focused provider.
Again, small is not bad. It just depends on how much support you expect to recieve and whether or not the company has the resources to meet your needs 24x7. Support is not just o/s experts. It has to do with networking, security, databases, etc. Techs get sick, take vacations, etc.I don't have any hosting experience with LiquidWeb, my comments are based on what I found at their site.You certainly act like you have experience with them.A small company can certianly provide decent support, but the depth of that support depends on how many people are actually support techs. If they have 40 employees you can chop off 5-10 for non technical roles (execs, sales, admins, etc). That would leave 30 for builds, installs and support. They claim 15,000 web sites... that's a crazy tech to customer ratio. That also tells me that they host mainly shared sites.On the topic of the number of employees, I don't see any mention of 40. All I see is this:We're Hiring With the recent opening of our 2nd state of the art 32,000 square foot datacenter we are expecting to add 100 new high tech jobs over the next several months. This growth has created exciting and challenging new career opportunities for motivated individuals looking for advancement. Liquid Web offices are located in Lansing, Michigan.<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://liquidweb.com/about/index.htmIf">http://liquidweb.com/about/index.htmIf</a><!-- m --> they are looking to hire 100 more employees, I'm sure they have more than 40 at this point.They do claim to have 15,000 clients. But Rackspace clients tend to have multi-server clustered setups, which will obviously result in more servers, and more techs required. These days you can place 1,000-1,500 shared clients on one server without too much of a negative effect (on a high-end, highly optimized box). So, yes, perhaps a good portion of those clients are shared hosting customers. If so, then you can only need to manage 1 server to take care of a large number of clients, as opposed to Rackspace clients which are generally more demanding.I see Windows as an option for their dedicated servers. Personally I wouldn't go with them since they are really a Linux-focused provider.I stand corrected as far as Windows being an option. Can you please link me to the CEO's statement about how most of the employees are from linux groups? I'm sure at this point, when they offer managed Windows hosting, they have techs that are well versed in Windows available 24x7.Again, small is not bad. It just depends on how much support you expect to recieve and whether or not the company has the resources to meet your needs 24x7.Yes, and you cannot claim that LiquidWeb is unterstaffed, or has a lack of resources, because you have never used them.Support is not just o/s experts.It's not, but for LiquidWeb, I guarantee you that 90% of the support inquiries are OS related. There isn't that much of a different between a network engineer and a software engineer, as the roles overlap quite a bit when you start getting into more advanced stuff, e.g. programming. Networking equipment (e.g. routers) are based on software, FYI.Liquidweb CEO quote: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thewhir.com/features/science-recruiting.cfm">http://www.thewhir.com/features/science-recruiting.cfm</a><!-- m -->
The Whir (Web Hosting Industry Review) is a great site to find articles and press releases about various hosting companies.
They look to be growing, that's a good thing. Hopefully this will enable them to provide good service. Everyone busines starts small. It's just a personal decision each business leader needs to make re: hosting. They must weigh the value that larger companies may offer over lesser-staffed companies and compare it with the cost differences. Larger companies tend to have worked out the kinks that smaller companies have yet to find out about. On the other hand, smaller companies don't deal with scaling issues that larger companies usually have to deal with. Fortunately I have not experienced any scaling issues at Rackspace.
To each his own.These days you can place 1,000-1,500 shared clients on one server without too much of a negative effect (on a high-end, highly optimized box).
Yes, this is technically possible. But if you are a business and your site has anything to do with your corporate image or revenue, you would be foolish to host your company site on such a configuration. Shared hosting, especially to the extreme you suggest above, is NOT what any respectable business owner would pursue. Why?
1) Resources: If you are one of 1,000 customers on a single server you are going to get 1/1000 of the processor, the memory and the NIC throughput. Sure, 8 dual-core procs, 32GB RAM and dual gig NICs are great, but 1/1000 of these pieces is quite lame. Yes, not everyone uses the same amount of resources, but this leads to my second concern..
2) Availability: If you have a shared site and just one customer creates a renegade process or memory leak, the box could suffer and 1000 customers start getting cranky due to poor performance. Or, what if just one of those customers gets ddos'd by a disgruntled employee or hated enemy? The box is toast. What about a customer uploading bad code that causes an unplanned maintenance window? Reboot = 1,000 reboots.
The odds of something going wrong on a shared server are far too great to risk a business on. Those that do so usually end up here whining that so-and-so host sucks because they couldn't do X or their hardware did Y. It's never cost, it's always the providers fault, right? ;-) "This steak tastes like crap!" Well, maybe it's because you are paying for a cheeseburger and expecting a t-bone.
As I've said before, you get what you pay for in this industry.Yes, this is technically possible. But if you are a business and your site has anything to do with your corporate image or revenue, you would be foolish to host your company site on such a configuration. Shared hosting, especially to the extreme you suggest above, is NOT what any respectable business owner would pursue. Why?
1) Resources: If you are one of 1,000 customers on a single server you are going to get 1/1000 of the processor, the memory and the NIC throughput. Sure, 8 dual-core procs, 32GB RAM and dual gig NICs are great, but 1/1000 of these pieces is quite lame. Yes, not everyone uses the same amount of resources, but this leads to my second concern..
2) Availability: If you have a shared site and just one customer creates a renegade process or memory leak, the box could suffer and 1000 customers start getting cranky due to poor performance. Or, what if just one of those customers gets ddos'd by a disgruntled employee or hated enemy? The box is toast. What about a customer uploading bad code that causes an unplanned maintenance window? Reboot = 1,000 reboots.
The odds of something going wrong on a shared server are far too great to risk a business on. Those that do so usually end up here whining that so-and-so host sucks because they couldn't do X or their hardware did Y. It's never cost, it's always the providers fault, right? ;-) "This steak tastes like crap!" Well, maybe it's because you are paying for a cheeseburger and expecting a t-bone.
As I've said before, you get what you pay for in this industry.
Well, I didn't want this discussion to drift into shared hosting, as that isn't what the topic is about. This topic is about comparing Rackspace and LiquidWeb.
I hate to break it to you, but have you managed servers with thousands of sites on them? I have, and things work a lot better than you describe.I actually had been considering rackspace and liquid web for a managed server for a couple of weeks. RACK SPACE:My impression is that rackspace is very impressive but the costs are high and their "managed" hosting is not really so managed. I came to this conclusion after talking to the rep and a lvl 3 tech in a conference shortly before my decision. The rep was very nice and so was the tech but they acted like they were going to nickle and dime me to death for anything I wanted. For example I just wanted a basic software firewall installed, or iptables installed and the rep said they could do it, but it took getting the tech on the line and he said everything would be $75 a half hour, and it was the same for any technical stuff, they wanted to be paid on anything that would take a tech more than 2 or 3 minutes over the phone. Not so managed I think....However, rackspace does claim to use only 40% of their bandwidth at a time (rackspace says most providers use 80%-90%) and are connection to 7 major backbones. LIQUIDWEB:They are much more reasonably priced and you do get more server for your money with them. They also seem to have very knowledgable people working for them, even their first level techs are quite knowledgeable. They install basic software such as a firewall on your server and are truely managed, when you ask a question or need some basic help they are glad to help. As far as bandwidth I don't know how much of their available bandwidth they are actually using, but they are connected to 3 major backbones and with the exception of the savvis network in my region slowing down occasionally, thir connections are pretty fast from what I can tell. Needless to say I decided to go with liquid web and after about a week of being with them, I'd say I'm a very happy customer thus far. :agree:layer0, I am familiar with what RS calls "intensive" management, but what does this mean for you? What advanced services are important for you and how have they not been met in the past?I've used both Rackspace and LiquidWeb and will do my best to offer impressions if that is still of interest.I use LW and everything has been super so far. Excellent tech support. Have fixed anything I broke, very quickly and without making me feel like a dummy. As far as not using a control panel, if you don't use cPanel, you are agreeing to self manage your server accourding to the LW website. I have the $60 vps and run my vbulletin forum on it. I'm pretty low traffic at the moment but growing steadily. If I need to upgrade servers I will be sticking with them. One thing that I really like about them is that just because I only spend $60, they don't make me feel like a $60/month kind of customer. They always treat me with respect and make me feel like a valued customer. On the other hand when I looked into Rackspace they told me $600/month for a really basic p4 server. And they told me it would be several hundred extra to set it up and harden it. I'm sure rackspace is a great company, but I don't think that small guys are their target customer. The person I talked to on the live chat there was very condescending and not very helpful once they found out I wasn't in the $600/month price range. Keep up the great work Liquidweb
You are welcome.LiquidWeb is a good company if you want shared services or a very basic server. If you intend on relying on their support they have somewhat limited resources, since they only have about 40 employees. If you look around the site you can find outmore about them. For example: according to the Liquidweb CEO, "We are a Linux-based company. I've recruited most of my employees from Linux user groups." If you have a Windows config you will be much better off with Rackspace. sn1per, Do you have a specific experience with our company's resources b/c we employ more than 40 people? We are adding people as I type. If your only estimate of a hosting company's support structure is based on the # of employees we have, and your estimate is off, what other factors do you look for in hosting resources? Additionally, do you have a any specific experiences with our Dedicated Windows Hosting, b/c I am a Microsoft guy myself, and it would be helpful if you could elaborate on your statement.If you have specific experiences please let me know and we'll look into them immediately.