Your View On 'Unlimited' Hosting?

[SenseiSteve]

But you singled this one out. No one goes around qualifying limited hosts with qualifiers that would prevent someone from using all of the limited disk quota promised. But many (you just happened to do it here today - ) seem to put up this inode limit factor as if it is some sort of dire warning. I'm just saying its an irrelevant consideration for the typical web site. In other words: Big Deal

Very nice for the Linux admin. Typical customer can care less. As a Windows admin myself, I find it interesting on a theoretical level (Windows doesn't use inodes).

No dire warning intended And you're correct in saying inodes are not relevant for typical web sites.

Off for another cup of coffee.

 

[Collabora]

And you're correct in saying inodes are not relevant for typical web sites.

In addition, what many people don't consider is: one of the biggest consumers of inodes is email, especially IMAP accounts. Thus a limited and unlimited host has to be careful offering unlimited email.

 

[storminternet]

One should offer unlimited webspace only for website content not for the file storage, backups and other data material which is not relevant to customer's website.

 

[Collabora]

One should offer unlimited webspace only for website content not for the file storage, backups and other data material which is not relevant to customer's website.

Very true! :thumbup:

They don't call it "web hosting" for nothing

 

[Alex - A2 Hosting]

In addition, what many people don't consider is: one of the biggest consumers of inodes is email, especially IMAP accounts. Thus a limited and unlimited host has to be careful offering unlimited email.

Most emails are very small though those small spaces do add up after a while. Providers with an inode limit are generally ok in this area as eventually they will hit that limit and the number one thing to do would be to clear their emails (which many people do anyways) giving them back a lot of inode space to grow.

 

[Collabora]

In addition, what many people don't consider is: one of the biggest consumers of inodes is email, especially IMAP accounts. Thus a limited and unlimited host has to be careful offering unlimited email.

Most emails are very small though those small spaces do add up after a while. Providers with an inode limit are generally ok in this area as eventually they will hit that limit and the number one thing to do would be to clear their emails (which many people do anyways) giving them back a lot of inode space to grow.

What is sometimes amusing is the limited host-critic of unlimited hosting when the critic is offering unlimited email, unlimited sites and unlimited databases but then limiting them with unmentioned disk aggregation. But they are quick to mention inode limits as a criticism of unlimited web space quota as if there is some sort of correlation between disk space and inode limits. Its as if failing to mention disk aggregation is somehow more virtuous than stating inode limits in a TOS.

These limited hosts also omit from their hosting plan that if you buy a 3GB plan, for example, and use 3GB for your website you will have no email. Thus unlimited email becomes zero email. Or to look at the reverse, before building a website your company uses 3GB worth of space in email (easy to do) your unlimited sites become zero sites.

Their Solution: You must upgrade to a bigger plan!

Then, if this little hosting sleight of hand isn't enough, they come into threads like this and accuse the unlimited host of running a scam because they have an inode limit, or invent 300 GB websites that don't exist as if they presented a real-world problem for the host, or bash the unlimited host for some reason out of the X Files about infinite hard drives.

Here is the real reason: These limited hosts are running scared. They are scared of hosts that offer the customer above a way out of the upgrade path -- and thus more profits. By eliminating the multi-tiered quota system and making consumers' choices easier; by not forcing the customer to pay for unexpected upgrades to keep their site running simply because the 3 GB Plan customer now needs 3.5 GB, the unlimited host of today is making the current multi-tiered quota-based plan obsolete tomorrow. And no amount of smears or lies in hosting forums is going to stop it.

 

[bunnykins]

Nothing I said has been a lie. Most if not all of what I said has been based on personal experience. I am not a host my self nor do I plan on starting a host of my own.
When I had hostgator and blue host which at the time were separate companies and had unlimited space and bandwidth asked me to upgrade because of other limits in place. I think with both it was a cpu limit. Other non unlimited hosts were able to host my site with out cpu issues like downtownhost and everity. Although everity has now become a unlimited host. It was not at the time and was actually against unlimited hosting for a lot of the reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. If I could find the article they had on their web site I would show you what they used to say. If I remember correctly though it was much like the article that cloudweb has on their site which I did post a link to on this thread.

I will admit I did eventually upgade to vps when everity and downtownhost saw cpu issues but that was only after increased activity that was not there when I had bluehost and hostgator.

Also several of the other unlimited hosts I have had are very slow such as godaddy which was so slow I lost a lot of members. There were a few others as well but I can not think of the name of them.

I only actually remember once were inodes became an issue and I have forgotten which host that actually was. However it was another unlimited host.

Oh and with several of the unlimited hosts I have had support issues. Some times the support has no idea what is going on or what you are asking. With some the support staff does not seem to care. Hostpc.com was one I had that had support that didn't seem to care at all about me. They were able to run my site with out cpu issues though but the support was so bad that I didn't have them very long. I have not had major support issues with limited hosts. Such as cloudweb and downtownhost, which actually in my opinion are the bests hosts on the planet.

So because of these issues I stay clear of all unlimited hosts. Because I do not have these issues with limited hosts.

 

[easyhostmedia]

Here is the real reason: These limited hosts are running scared. They are scared of hosts that offer the customer above a way out of the upgrade path -- and thus more profits. By eliminating the multi-tiered quota system and making consumers' choices easier; by not forcing the customer to pay for unexpected upgrades to keep their site running simply because the 3 GB Plan customer now needs 3.5 GB, the unlimited host of today is making the current multi-tiered quota-based plan obsolete tomorrow. And no amount of smears or lies in hosting forums is going to stop it.

what a load of BS.

I personally would rather pay for a fixed (limited) and then as my business/site grows upgrade as then it give you a sense of achievement as you see your business/site grow as you need to grow your hosting plan, rather than have a plan that you dont need to grow, so you really dont have any sense of achievement of your business/site growing.

 

[Collabora]

What is sometimes amusing is the [limited] host-critic of unlimited hosting [that offers] unlimited email, unlimited sites and unlimited databases but then limiting them with unmentioned disk aggregation. But they are quick to mention inode limits as a criticism of unlimited web space quota as if there is some sort of correlation between disk space and inode limits. Its as if failing to mention disk aggregation is somehow more virtuous than stating inode limits in a TOS.

These limited hosts also omit from their hosting plan that if you buy a 3GB plan, for example, and use 3GB for your website you will have no email. Thus unlimited email becomes zero email. Or to look at the reverse, before building a website your company uses 3GB worth of space in email (easy to do) your unlimited sites become zero sites.

Their Solution: You must upgrade to a bigger plan!

Then, if this little hosting sleight of hand isn't enough, they come into threads like this and accuse the unlimited host of running a scam because they have an inode limit, or invent 300 GB websites that don't exist as if they presented a real-world problem for the host, or bash the unlimited host for some reason out of the X Files about infinite hard drives.

Here is the real reason: These limited hosts are running scared. They are scared of hosts that offer the customer above a way out of the upgrade path -- and thus more profits. By eliminating the multi-tiered quota system and making consumers' choices easier; by not forcing the customer to pay for unexpected upgrades to keep their site running simply because the 3 GB Plan customer now needs 3.5 GB, the unlimited host of today is making the current multi-tiered quota-based plan obsolete tomorrow. And no amount of smears or lies in hosting forums is going to stop it.

I personally would rather pay for a fixed (limited) and then as my business/site grows upgrade as then it give you a sense of achievement as you see your business/site grow as you need to grow your hosting plan, rather than have a plan that you dont need to grow, so you really dont have any sense of achievement of your business/site growing.

Baloney. The sense of achievement for the customer comes from watching the site grow in terms of pages, content, and visitors -- not the requirement to upgrade to a plan with higher arbitrary limits. If you are correct then having 10 Plans between 1 GB and 10 GB instead of 3 Plans would make the customer even happier: Now he can upgrade many times to the same GBs instead of having to upgrade only once. And you call that achievement! :uhh:

 

[bunnykins]

what a load of BS.

I personally would rather pay for a fixed (limited) and then as my business/site grows upgrade as then it give you a sense of achievement as you see your business/site grow as you need to grow your hosting plan, rather than have a plan that you dont need to grow, so you really dont have any sense of achievement of your business/site growing.

I agree. If my site became busy enough again to require me to upgrade to vps it would be a very good achievement. I would be very happy about it as well. I am actually hopping that happens again.

 

[easyhostmedia]

Baloney. The sense of achievement for the customer comes from watching the site grow in terms of pages, content, and visitors -- not the requirement to upgrade to a plan with higher arbitrary limits. If you are correct then having 10 Plans between 1 GB and 10 GB instead of 3 Plans would make the customer even happier: Now he can upgrade many times to the same GBs instead of having to upgrade only once. And you call that achievement! :uhh:

It is not Baloney. you look at a high street store, as their business grows they extend their current store or move to a larger store. this is the achievement showing that because your business has grown, you have outgrown your current premises. web host plan is the persons store premises, so as your business/site grows then that is an achievement than requires either expand (upgrade) your plan or move elsewhere.

 

[Collabora]

I agree. If my site became busy enough again to require me to upgrade to vps it would be a very good achievement. I would be very happy about it as well. I am actually hopping that happens again.

He was talking about upgrading among shared hosting plans. See the parts of my post that was snipped above for context

Or maybe you can answer the question he refuses to: Why is it a larger achievement to upgrade 5 times as site grows from 1 GB to 5 GB than to upgrade once from a 3 GB plan to a 5GB plan. Where is the lack of achievement if customer just started out with a 5GB plan

Don't be fooled by false analogies. To equate a brick-and-mortar stores success (measured in sales and income), and subsequent expansion into a larger building, to more pages in a website causing a plan upgrade from Plan A to Plan B is ludicrous at best.

 

[easyhostmedia]

He was talking about upgrading among shared hosting plans. See the parts of my post that was snipped above for context

Upgrading is upgrading regardless

1 shared plan to a higher shared plan
shared plan to reseller plan
shared plan to VPS

or the many other permutations

 

[Collabora]

Upgrading is upgrading regardless

1 shared plan to a higher shared plan
shared plan to reseller plan
shared plan to VPS

or the many other permutations

You know very well what we are discussing here and that you were referring to upgrading among shared hosting plans. Given the context of this thread (shared hosting plans), my post and your response to it, it becomes very clear

I personally would rather pay for a fixed (limited) [this refers to hared hosting] and then as my business/site grows upgrade [to another fixed (limited) plan] as then it give you a sense of achievement as you see your business/site grow as you need to grow your hosting plan [hosting plans refer, er hosting plans], rather than have a plan [obviously shared hosting plans] that you dont need to grow, so you really don't have any sense of achievement of your business/site growing.

If you think my bracketed comments are not accurate consider that this was in response to my post, that was conveniently snipped:

...

These limited hosts also omit from their hosting plan that if you buy a 3GB plan, for example, and use 3GB for your website you will have no email. Thus unlimited email becomes zero email. Or to look at the reverse, before building a website your company uses 3GB worth of space in email (easy to do) your unlimited sites become zero sites.

Their Solution: You must upgrade to a bigger plan [clearly a shared hosting plan]!

Here is the real reason: These limited hosts are running scared. They are scared of hosts that offer the customer above a way out of the upgrade path -- and thus more profits. By eliminating the multi-tiered quota system and making consumers' choices easier; by not forcing the customer to pay for unexpected upgrades to keep their site running simply because the 3 GB Plan customer now needs 3.5 GB, the unlimited host of today is making the current multi-tiered quota-based plan obsolete tomorrow. And no amount of smears or lies in hosting forums is going to stop it.

Where is it that indicates we are talking about upgrading from shared hosting to virtual and dedicated servers -- and NOT between shared hosing plans?

The context switching and false analogies by previous poster is further evidence of my thesis here. The one thing the limited host cannot tolerate is a reasonable approach to unlimited hosting and turning their own anti-unlimited rhetoric against them.

 

[easyhostmedia]

You know very well what we are discussing here and that you were referring to upgrading among shared hosting plans. Given the context of this thread (shared hosting plans), my post and your response to it, it becomes very clear

Thread Title: Your View On 'Unlimited' Hosting?

this does not specifically relay to shared hosting, so their are many permutations to upgrade.

what would happen if you are on the highest shared plan your host provides?

 

[Collabora]

Thread Title: Your View On 'Unlimited' Hosting?

this does not specifically relay to shared hosting, so their are many permutations to upgrade.

what would happen if you are on the highest shared plan your host provides?

It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Its a Red Herring. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss upgrading from shared hosting to vps and dedicated sever

Before you derail the conversation more with talk about dedicated servers, let me reiterate my point as it relates to the topic at hand

This is where a single unlimited plan shines: Since about 100% of personal and small biz websites suitable for a shared hosting environment are under 5 GB, what is the advantage (to the customer) of trying to select form a myriad of plans somewhere between 1 GB and 10 GB (for example)? Or forcing upgrades between shared hosting plans?

If one doesn't like the idea of unlimited then why not a single shared hosting plan at say 10 GB? Hec, make it 6 GB. Almost all the sites (suitable for shared hosting environment) will be under 5 GB anyway.

 

[easyhostmedia]

Since about 100% of personal and small biz websites suitable for a shared hosting environment are under 5 GB

Have you any evidence to back this up?

I have several clients with small biz sites that are using over 7GB on shared plans. ( model agencies, estate agencies, photographers) who take most space up with images.

 

[bunnykins]

All this talk about space has me wondering how much space this site takes up.
My database is 190 + in size and I have 40000 + posts. The post table in the database is 15mb and this site has 4 times the post my site has so more then likely the post table is 60mb or more.

Any way I don't take my space requirements going up as an achievement because that always goes up even though the activity on the site has gone down. So upgrading from a shared to a shared is not an achievement but upgrading from shared to vps or higher is.

 

[Collabora]

All this talk about space has me wondering how much space this site takes up.
My database is 190 + in size and I have 40000 + posts. The post table in the database is 15mb and this site has 4 times the post my site has so more then likely the post table is 60mb or more.

Any way I don't take my space requirements going up as an achievement because that always goes up even though the activity on the site has gone down. So upgrading from a shared to a shared is not an achievement but upgrading from shared to vps or higher is.

Yep, good analysis. I know of a Wordpress site with 50,000 posts and the database is 200 MB. And that might not even be optimized!

You may be surprised to learn that there are a lot of customers that do nothing with their hosting plan, or not much at all. The average size for a site on a server is much smaller than a lot of people think.

 

[Artashes]

I am actually fascinated with this discussion. I've been following the industry for God knows how long and I have never seen an explanations of "unlimited" put quite in those terms of separating "quotas" from "hardware". I have seriously NEVER thought of it that way and it is somewhat of an eye-opener for me.

"Unlimited simply means the absence of quota imposed by the provider. The hardware is only the object of the quota."

This might actually be the very first time when I am open to the idea of starting to think differently of "unlimited" resources in the scope of the hosting industry. While I understand the concept (I think), I am still restrained by a thought that a lot more shops that offer unlimited, offer it without any real understanding of it, nor without any sort of operational knowledge, and are only offering "unlimited" because it is what sells plans, so they consider it to be nothing more than a marketing keyword that potential clients want to hear.

One more point. Unlimited hosting, while can be managed properly, simply doesn't inspire the confidence that a provider won't pull the plug on a site for other reasons that are a lot more foreign to me (server loads, RAM, CPU, etc etc). I am not denying that it might very well be true that the quota can be expanded continuously, but from a purely customer point of view, I would very much prefer to know the exact limitations of what I am getting and what I can monitor myself, rather than being handed an amazing unlimited deal with a chance of being shut down.

And lastly, in defense of those who claim that unlimited doesn't exist, how about this argument: You might be scaling the quota within 1 server, 5, 1000 and so on (so unlimited resources without hardware limitation), but shouldn't you be aware of other factors directly linked to the ability to provide necessary resource, such as hard disk manufacturers. If they all shut down the manufacturing tomorrow, the world will immediately get a limited amount of disk space that cannot be expanded any more than that amount that exists. How would you respond that that?