Jump to content
MDDHosting Forums

The future of webhosting


Blind Bandit
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've heard a lot about cloud hosting and distributed (CDN style hosting). Recently. many claim these methods and others such as a pay as you go, dedicated servers on demand are the way of the future. Some would even argue visualization is the future of hosting. So I'm wondering what are others take on this? will traditional hosting be over taken by cloud computing or virtualization ? Or will these hosting styles stay as specialty hosting choices? Whats more is it feasible small companies to provide this service if it were to become the standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot about cloud hosting and distributed (CDN style hosting). Recently. many claim these methods and others such as a pay as you go, dedicated servers on demand are the way of the future. Some would even argue visualization is the future of hosting. So I'm wondering what are others take on this? will traditional hosting be over taken by cloud computing or virtualization ? Or will these hosting styles stay as specialty hosting choices? Whats more is it feasible small companies to provide this service if it were to become the standard?

 

I'd say that, as more media-rich sites become mainstream and internet traffic goes, scalable hosting will become more and more prevalent. As to virtualization, if I started a host right now on my own equipment, I'd get an extremely powerful rig and run several VPSes on top of it for maximum stability, probably one for each processor core.

 

s to small companies, they may have to resell services of larger entities, or do a lot of programming, to work with sclability. Then again, a shared hosting account is relatively easy to migrate from one server to another, creating at least a little scalability there...

 

I'd think that, for about 75% of the websites on the internet, shared hosting will still be perfectly fine, as high quality scalable hosting will carry a premium for quite some time. But for the other 25% you'll be seeing more and more of it.

 

Heck, there's some scalable hosting going on right now on the very low-end level; check out nearlyfreespeech.net...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot about cloud hosting and distributed (CDN style hosting).
Newer technologies that have their place, but I wouldn't say they will replace mainstream hosting anytime in the near future.

 

Recently. many claim these methods and others such as a pay as you go, dedicated servers on demand are the way of the future. Some would even argue visualization is the future of hosting.
They are "pay as you go" and some are pay-by-usage as well which is nice - if you use it you pay if you don't you don't. They are great systems and they have a good place in the market but I don't see them being the "future of hosting" as they are made out to be personally.

 

So I'm wondering what are others take on this? will traditional hosting be over taken by cloud computing or virtualization ? Or will these hosting styles stay as specialty hosting choices? Whats more is it feasible small companies to provide this service if it were to become the standard?
It's just like any type of industry - there are going to be big companies with big solutions and then there are going to be your smaller companies with smaller more tailored solutions for each customer. I don't see small companies or their solutions going by the wayside anytime in the near future. I can't predict the future but knowing what I know I'd say that it's not very likely.

 

Remember when they said the DVD was going to *replace* the CD? If I'm not mistaken you can still buy CDs in stores :)

 

I'd say that, as more media-rich sites become mainstream and internet traffic goes, scalable hosting will become more and more prevalent.
You are likely right but on an as-needed basis. I could have a very very media-rich site and have no need for a CDN or Cloud computing as I simply don't have the traffic to justify it. That and CDN's and Cloud computing are already prevalent, if you look at MySpace.com as an example they already use a network of computers working to serve one purpose (as do most sites) as well as a content delivery network. If I'm not mistaken you get cdn.myspace.com for most media.

 

As to virtualization, if I started a host right now on my own equipment, I'd get an extremely powerful rig and run several VPSes on top of it for maximum stability, probably one for each processor core.
That may or may not be a good idea, there is a fair bit of overhead and additional management involved for virtual private servers. You may actually end up with less performance out of your system by going this route. I know of some providers that do it like this and they call it "split-shared hosting" and other similar terms. It's one way of doing things... The best?? That's up for debate.

 

As to small companies, they may have to resell services of larger entities, or do a lot of programming, to work with sclability. Then again, a shared hosting account is relatively easy to migrate from one server to another, creating at least a little scalability there...
Scalability is not really an issue when it comes to shared hosting as shared hosting has it's place in the market. I can't see traditional shared hosting disappearing anytime in the near future. Most web hosting customers have a hard time understanding how shared hosting itself works (in the traditional sense) much less trying to explain the benefits of cloud computing or a content delivery network.

 

When the need for scalability is there (usually not with shared hosting clients) is where cloud hosting and cdn will excel. It's easier to be on a "cloud" managed by another entity than to set up your own cluster, although I know that some companies will prefer to set up their own cluster no matter what. We could easily resell on somebody else's servers as an example but we choose to operate our own servers so that we can keep management and support in-house.

 

I'd think that, for about 75% of the websites on the internet, shared hosting will still be perfectly fine, as high quality scalable hosting will carry a premium for quite some time. But for the other 25% you'll be seeing more and more of it.
I'd say more like 95% of sites, only large entities such as Google, Yahoo, CNN, etc... need such scalable solutions. You may think there are a lot of these big sites to constitute more than 5% but there are *billions and trillions* of web sites out there, can you name out 200,000 "large" sites that need scalable solutions??? Probably not :)

 

Heck, there's some scalable hosting going on right now on the very low-end level; check out nearlyfreespeech.net...
Yeah, they've been around for a while and they have a place in the market. I am sure there are limits to their scalability as it is shared hosting at it's roots still.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newer technologies that have their place, but I wouldn't say they will replace mainstream hosting anytime in the near future.

 

They are "pay as you go" and some are pay-by-usage as well which is nice - if you use it you pay if you don't you don't. They are great systems and they have a good place in the market but I don't see them being the "future of hosting" as they are made out to be personally.

 

It's just like any type of industry - there are going to be big companies with big solutions and then there are going to be your smaller companies with smaller more tailored solutions for each customer. I don't see small companies or their solutions going by the wayside anytime in the near future. I can't predict the future but knowing what I know I'd say that it's not very likely.

 

Remember when they said the DVD was going to *replace* the CD? If I'm not mistaken you can still buy CDs in stores :)

 

You are likely right but on an as-needed basis. I could have a very very media-rich site and have no need for a CDN or Cloud computing as I simply don't have the traffic to justify it. That and CDN's and Cloud computing are already prevalent, if you look at MySpace.com as an example they already use a network of computers working to serve one purpose (as do most sites) as well as a content delivery network. If I'm not mistaken you get cdn.myspace.com for most media.

 

That may or may not be a good idea, there is a fair bit of overhead and additional management involved for virtual private servers. You may actually end up with less performance out of your system by going this route. I know of some providers that do it like this and they call it "split-shared hosting" and other similar terms. It's one way of doing things... The best?? That's up for debate.

 

Scalability is not really an issue when it comes to shared hosting as shared hosting has it's place in the market. I can't see traditional shared hosting disappearing anytime in the near future. Most web hosting customers have a hard time understanding how shared hosting itself works (in the traditional sense) much less trying to explain the benefits of cloud computing or a content delivery network.

 

When the need for scalability is there (usually not with shared hosting clients) is where cloud hosting and cdn will excel. It's easier to be on a "cloud" managed by another entity than to set up your own cluster, although I know that some companies will prefer to set up their own cluster no matter what. We could easily resell on somebody else's servers as an example but we choose to operate our own servers so that we can keep management and support in-house.

 

I'd say more like 95% of sites, only large entities such as Google, Yahoo, CNN, etc... need such scalable solutions. You may think there are a lot of these big sites to constitute more than 5% but there are *billions and trillions* of web sites out there, can you name out 200,000 "large" sites that need scalable solutions??? Probably not :)

 

Yeah, they've been around for a while and they have a place in the market. I am sure there are limits to their scalability as it is shared hosting at it's roots still.

 

Well, one limitation is that, for hosting comparable to other providers, they're ridiculously expensive. 1c per MB of storage per month, 20-100 cents per GB of traffic. A site that used the same resources as the $7.50 package here on bandwidth alone would be spending a minimum of $4 and probably more like $20 per month. Storage? Lotsa money.

 

Also, they're not in the center of the internet, like, say, SoftLayer is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one limitation is that, for hosting comparable to other providers, they're ridiculously expensive. 1c per MB of storage per month, 20-100 cents per GB of traffic. A site that used the same resources as the $7.50 package here on bandwidth alone would be spending a minimum of $4 and probably more like $20 per month. Storage? Lotsa money.

 

Also, they're not in the center of the internet, like, say, SoftLayer is...

Storage and Transfer really are that expensive, but the thing you have to keep in mind is that when you sell 10gb/50gb to a client, just because you have promised them that doesn't mean that they will use it. This is how most shared hosting companies are able to make a profit without charging the same amount as the cloud computing/CDN companies.

 

Since they are charging you on actual usage and not based upon a promise, they have to charge you what it actually costs + some in order to turn a profit :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...