Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT & Internet) <n...@syndicat.com> wrote:
> if runned with typical, "well" dimensioned and configured business server > hardware (i.e. HP DL or IBM etc. - what many think about if they think > "servers") on top IP uplink with skilled support personal without any > possible restrictions such prices are not to held. But the very most of such > products have "bottlenecks" otherwhere (compared to "less cheap" products) > and/or are driven on much cheaper PC hardware (what could makes sense in some > apps). Another option / version are "hidden" costs in pratical usage. > > I.e. "shared CPU" could mean everything and could act as a bottleneck if > "required" from hosters side (if you are getting "to expa|ensive"). > > Usually first customers are happy as they get the most resources at their > time - and these are most important from a marketing view... > > This doesnt mean that such products did not have any applications with any > sense - but you have to be very clear about (if you rely on that service / > resources in any way). > > just my two cents... I've taken a look at your site: I would classify you among the premium providers. :-) I would agree that one has to be cautious with respect to lower-cost providers: it helps to inquire about them and to look for recommendations. There have been many lower-cost providers that have deadpooled within a couple of years of their launch. This said, there are a number of reliable, lower-cost providers out there if one wants to save some money. C.
