Any good local hosting companies?

[John A. Weeks III]

Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

My current disk space is about 1-GB, and monthly bandwidth is
running about 50, but I don't recall what the units are--it is
ether gigabits or gigabytes. I expect both of those numbers
to go up as I convert my site to high definition.

The key factor for me is reliability. I have been through
several of the $5 and $10 a month hosting companies. They all
work fine for a few weeks, and then they have some kind of
disaster. My current one, Downtown Host, has been great
for the past 2 years, but they run into streaks where they
get pounded by BOT attacks, including a nasty one that has
been running about a week now. A pervious one lost all their
disk storage due to a failure, and another one lost many of
their machines when a UPS went bad and fried a bunch of
power supplies.

I don't mind paying some money for this, but I haven't found
that monthly fees and service levels are correlated. The
more costly ones have been just as flaky as the cheap ones.
Maybe the answer is trying to build an H/A site out of
several of these dime store hosting sites.

-john-

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

John,

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.
My current disk space is about 1-GB, and monthly bandwidth is
running about 50, but I don't recall what the units are--it is
ether gigabits or gigabytes. I expect both of those numbers
to go up as I convert my site to high definition.

I run a local consulting/hosting company that offers that:
http://www.cybernetik.net/web-hosting/linux-hosting.html
I have two clusters running, one running cPanel and one running H-
Sphere. There are sign-up links for both of them on that page, and
the prices/features are pretty much identical.

Post by John A. Weeks III
The key factor for me is reliability. I have been through
several of the $5 and $10 a month hosting companies. They all
work fine for a few weeks, and then they have some kind of
disaster. My current one, Downtown Host, has been great
for the past 2 years, but they run into streaks where they
get pounded by BOT attacks, including a nasty one that has
been running about a week now. A pervious one lost all their
disk storage due to a failure, and another one lost many of
their machines when a UPS went bad and fried a bunch of
power supplies.

I have intrusion detection systems in place to prevent against the fun
'ol BOT attacks. Because I don't advertise publicly like the big
hosting companies, I don't get a rush of idiots signing up for the
service tearing down things. I keep a close eye on things and ensure
that the noted items above don't happen.

Post by John A. Weeks III
I don't mind paying some money for this, but I haven't found
that monthly fees and service levels are correlated. The
more costly ones have been just as flaky as the cheap ones.
Maybe the answer is trying to build an H/A site out of
several of these dime store hosting sites.

The price may sound cheap, but I'm not looking to make a fortune off
the hosting service. It's here, it's not going anywhere, and it is
low price. Many people believe "you get what you pay for" and I can
understand their reasoning for believing that. The main income for
the business comes in from other sources, but the hosting is there so
I can maintain close relationships with my clients by providing the
complete package. The great service that you'd get from any other
company you trust is still there, and best of all it is local.

If you want to drop me a private message, I can set up a trial if you
want to give it a test drive for a month or so.

--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[Brian Elfert]

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

I'm not sure how having a local web hosting company really helps these
days. Web hosting, like Internet access, is a total commodity at this
point.

Have you tried someone like GoDaddy? I've not used their web hosting, but
they have great phone support for their other products.

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Brian Elfert

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

I'm not sure how having a local web hosting company really helps these
days. Web hosting, like Internet access, is a total commodity at this
point.

My thought was that if I was going to pay someone, I might as well
try to spend that money locally. In addition, someone who is local
and visible might be more likely to take their uptime promises with
some level of seriousness. A faceless remote hosting site simply
doesn't have any skin in the game.

Post by Brian Elfert
Have you tried someone like GoDaddy? I've not used their web hosting, but
they have great phone support for their other products.

I use GoDaddy for my domain registrations. I found that there E-mail
service was so unreliable that I cancelled and asked for my money
back. At least they honored the refund. If they screwed up
something as ubiquitous as E-mail, then I wasn't going to trust
them with my web site. Another issue with GoDaddy is that they
have gotten really sleezy with their sex-based marketing. I don't
want to do business with anyone who has so little regard for women.

-john-

[Doc O'Leary]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Brian Elfert

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

I'm not sure how having a local web hosting company really helps these
days. Web hosting, like Internet access, is a total commodity at this
point.

My thought was that if I was going to pay someone, I might as well
try to spend that money locally.

And yet I don't see any local web hosts giving discounts for local
business. The Internet is big, and hosting is not a high-value local
service.

Post by John A. Weeks III
In addition, someone who is local
and visible might be more likely to take their uptime promises with
some level of seriousness.

As a counterpoint, a local host only has to explain downtime for your
*local* connection. It seems like a paradox, but I'd rather *know*
there are issues when I can't connect to my site in another state than
*not* know there are problems because I *can* connect my site nearby.

Post by John A. Weeks III
A faceless remote hosting site simply
doesn't have any skin in the game.

As a counterpoint, it is more important for a large operation hosting
thousands of sites to keep things running smoothly than it is for a
small operation to keep a handful of sites up. If significant downtime
results in the loss of customers to the tune of $10,000/month, you can
damn well bet they'll see it as more "skin in the game" than the small
guy losing $50/month.

If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

Post by Doc O'Leary
As a counterpoint, it is more important for a large operation hosting
thousands of sites to keep things running smoothly than it is for a
small operation to keep a handful of sites up.  If significant downtime
results in the loss of customers to the tune of $10,000/month, you can
damn well bet they'll see it as more "skin in the game" than the small
guy losing $50/month.
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

It's equally important for big and small companies to keep things
running smoothly. Both companies have a reputation to try to keep up,
so that may even affect the small company more if they truly do care
about their customers and the future of their company.

Many sites are now publicly posting uptime statistics for the servers
that their customers sites are on. It may be worth asking them if
they have any such statistics available (preferably gathered from an
outside source like siteuptime.com or something similiar) so you can
really see how good they actually are from an outside point of view.


--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[Doc O'Leary]

In article

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn

Post by Doc O'Leary
As a counterpoint, it is more important for a large operation hosting
thousands of sites to keep things running smoothly than it is for a
small operation to keep a handful of sites up.  If significant downtime
results in the loss of customers to the tune of $10,000/month, you can
damn well bet they'll see it as more "skin in the game" than the small
guy losing $50/month.
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

It's equally important for big and small companies to keep things
running smoothly. Both companies have a reputation to try to keep up,
so that may even affect the small company more if they truly do care
about their customers and the future of their company.

Sure, it *might*, but I don't know that you can go in with that
assumption any more than you can with the idea that local is going to
mean better. In my experience, economies of scale have played a more
important role as online services have become a commodity.

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn
Many sites are now publicly posting uptime statistics for the servers
that their customers sites are on. It may be worth asking them if
they have any such statistics available (preferably gathered from an
outside source like siteuptime.com or something similiar) so you can
really see how good they actually are from an outside point of view.

External evaluation is always preferable, but the Internet is so vast
that it is essentially becoming meaningless to make uptime promises for
any isolated components of the system. I mean, it doesn't much matter
if everything you do guarantees 100% availability when your most
important client happens to try to connect with a malware infested
computer over a spotty WiFi network.

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Doc O'Leary
In article

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn
Many sites are now publicly posting uptime statistics for the servers
that their customers sites are on. It may be worth asking them if
they have any such statistics available (preferably gathered from an
outside source like siteuptime.com or something similiar) so you can
really see how good they actually are from an outside point of view.

From what I found, most sites advertise 99.something% uptime not
matter what their real uptime is. I questioned the Bluehost
people after a series of server crashes, and they told me that
their number is for network availability. That is, if you can
ping their gateway router, they are up, no matter what is
actually happening. Their servers can be crashed and their
SAN can be unplugged, but as long as the router is ping'able,
they are considered up and available.

-john-

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

Post by John A. Weeks III
From what I found, most sites advertise 99.something% uptime not
matter what their real uptime is.  I questioned the Bluehost
people after a series of server crashes, and they told me that
their number is for network availability.  That is, if you can
ping their gateway router, they are up, no matter what is
actually happening.  Their servers can be crashed and their
SAN can be unplugged, but as long as the router is ping'able,
they are considered up and available.

According to their FAQ (http://helpdesk.bluehost.com/index.php/kb/
article/000499), they dont even offer that anymore

Q: Can I get a prorated refund for the down time?
A: Due to the complexity and nature of a shared webhosting
environment, downtime occurs. Unfortunately, we do not offer
compensation for any down time. We are sorry for any inconvenience or
loss which resulted from your website being down. For any questions
about our policies and procedures, please see our Terms of Service.

Q: What about the 99.9% network uptime guarantee?
A: The 99% guarantee that we had was for network uptime which is the
connectivity of our network to the Internet. We do not guarantee 99.9%
uptime. Nonetheless, this is what most of our customers experience. We
do all we can to maximize the amount of uptime each of our customers
receive by investing millions of dollars in providing as many
redundant systems as possible such as: routers, Internet connectivity,
ups power backups and backup generators. Unfortunately, down time on
the Internet occurs frequently and, with shared web hosting, it is
inevitable. The majority of down time we experience is caused from a
minority of users who over-extend server resources causing performance
degradation. We continually monitor our servers and react quickly to
minimize such abuse. When down time is experienced, our system's
administrators respond very quickly to ensure your website is back up
as soon as possible.


--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Doc O'Leary
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

Any ideas on how I do that?

I know about various DNS tricks to distribute load across multiple
IP addresses, but I don't know how to incorporate that into an
H/A strategy without some kind of network load director (such
as a BigIP). At some point, you have to continually check each
site, and know whether or not they should be in the load
balancing pool. So far, I haven't found anyone doing that as
a service on the Internet.

Let me know if you know of something that will do this without
having to pay too much of a price for it. If I was doing a
commercial site or had a profit motive, then I could justify
and afford a real H/A scheme.

Perhaps there is a business opportunity here...providing the
site checking and DNS pool management as a service. One could
call it RAID-2000 -- a redundant array of inexpensive web hosting
sites.

-john-

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Doc O'Leary
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

Any ideas on how I do that?
I know about various DNS tricks to distribute load across multiple
IP addresses, but I don't know how to incorporate that into an
H/A strategy without some kind of network load director (such
as a BigIP).  At some point, you have to continually check each
site, and know whether or not they should be in the load
balancing pool.  So far, I haven't found anyone doing that as
a service on the Internet.

There really isn't much of a way to incorporate that into an H/A
strategy. I don't know if you're using any kind of databases or
anything, but you'd need to make sure that your files are updated
across all of your servers and continuously do checks against them to
make sure they're returning successful responses on webpage loads. If
they're not, you'd have to change DNS to point to a different one when
the active one goes down. Then that means you also have to worry
about the TTL's in your DNS zone so that when you make a change it
quickly propagates to the rest of the world. Setting the TTL for your
domains to 60-seconds so you can switch IP's if a site goes down isn't
the most elegant solution either. In addition to TTL's the question
is which one of the providers do you host DNS with (or do you host it
with a DNS hosting service which would be an additional fee?), and how
can you make sure you get that DNS update done quickly.

--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[Doug McIntyre]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Doc O'Leary
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

Any ideas on how I do that?

As you said, its mostly based on DNS at that point, but specialized
DNS responders. There's many content hosting places that do hosting
based on this model, but its generally orientated at large business,
because they are the ones that need it more, and are willing to pay
for it.

Akamai is the most famous global content delivery network, and almost
all the big boys use them. Look for the terms "content delivery
network" or "global load balancer", matching F5's lead in their GLB
product line (outgrown from the ancient old 3DNS line they bought).

Post by John A. Weeks III
Let me know if you know of something that will do this without
having to pay too much of a price for it. If I was doing a
commercial site or had a profit motive, then I could justify
and afford a real H/A scheme.

The infrastructure needed tends to be quite costly, so customers are
targeted that can afford it...

[Doc O'Leary]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Doc O'Leary
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

Any ideas on how I do that?

There are many ideas, all geared at different needs and budgets. At the
most basic level you might have two mirror sites that each host their
own DNS, so if the first record fails everything gets served from the
second. Whether or not that suits your purposes depends a lot on what
you want to do with the servers.

[John A. Weeks III]

Post by Doc O'Leary

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Doc O'Leary
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

Any ideas on how I do that?

There are many ideas, all geared at different needs and budgets. At the
most basic level you might have two mirror sites that each host their
own DNS, so if the first record fails everything gets served from the
second. Whether or not that suits your purposes depends a lot on what
you want to do with the servers.

What do you mean by "if the first record fails"? How is that
detected, and how is the fail-over done. If you mean that your
DNS server is unavailable, I have never had a DNS level failure
with my web site. The issues are always slow pages or no pages.

If I have 2 parallel web sites at different hosts, how would
you detect when one goes down, and how would that traffic get
redirected to the 2nd site? The only thing I can think of is
to constantly monitor one site from a 3rd location, and switch
DNS entries if the first one goes down. But since it can take
up to 3 days for DNS to propagate, that isn't much of a
solution for continuous availability. Is there any reasonable
solution short of getting an F5 BigIP box? That requires
dedicated hosting and a reliable connection to the Internet,
so you are right back in the same pickle. The only real
solution seems to be to rent rack space at a real internet
data center, paying the $100 or $200 a month it would take.
That is beyond what I am willing to pay unless I can find a
sponsor, and I really don't want to resort to advertising,
and the possibility of having to edit what I say.

-john-

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

Post by John A. Weeks III

Post by Doc O'Leary
If uptime is really a key factor, use multiple hosting companies with
proper load balancing/failover support.

Any ideas on how I do that?

There are many ideas, all geared at different needs and budgets.  At the
most basic level you might have two mirror sites that each host their
own DNS, so if the first record fails everything gets served from the
second.  Whether or not that suits your purposes depends a lot on what
you want to do with the servers.

What do you mean by "if the first record fails"?  How is that
detected, and how is the fail-over done.  If you mean that your
DNS server is unavailable, I have never had a DNS level failure
with my web site.  The issues are always slow pages or no pages.
If I have 2 parallel web sites at different hosts, how would
you detect when one goes down, and how would that traffic get
redirected to the 2nd site?  The only thing I can think of is
to constantly monitor one site from a 3rd location, and switch
DNS entries if the first one goes down.  But since it can take
up to 3 days for DNS to propagate, that isn't much of a
solution for continuous availability.  Is there any reasonable
solution short of getting an F5 BigIP box?  That requires
dedicated hosting and a reliable connection to the Internet,
so you are right back in the same pickle.  The only real
solution seems to be to rent rack space at a real internet
data center, paying the $100 or $200 a month it would take.
That is beyond what I am willing to pay unless I can find a
sponsor, and I really don't want to resort to advertising,
and the possibility of having to edit what I say.
-john-
--
======================================================================
Newave Communicationshttp://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

What do you mean by "if the first record fails"?  How is that
detected, and how is the fail-over done.  If you mean that your
DNS server is unavailable, I have never had a DNS level failure
with my web site.  The issues are always slow pages or no pages.

DNS is round robin, so unless there is a load balancer in the mix,
then if the first record that the web browser tries fails, then the
site failes; not ideal.

If I have 2 parallel web sites at different hosts, how would
you detect when one goes down, and how would that traffic get
redirected to the 2nd site?  The only thing I can think of is
to constantly monitor one site from a 3rd location, and switch
DNS entries if the first one goes down.  But since it can take
up to 3 days for DNS to propagate, that isn't much of a
solution for continuous availability.  Is there any reasonable
solution short of getting an F5 BigIP box?  That requires
dedicated hosting and a reliable connection to the Internet,
so you are right back in the same pickle.  The only real
solution seems to be to rent rack space at a real internet
data center, paying the $100 or $200 a month it would take.
That is beyond what I am willing to pay unless I can find a
sponsor, and I really don't want to resort to advertising,
and the possibility of having to edit what I say.

You would need something monitoring the site from a third location.
The time it takes for DNS to propagate is all dependent on what you
have set up for the TTL's in the DNS zone. You can make your records
expire after 60 seconds, so every minute DNS lookups need to be
refreshed.. which isn't ideal by any means.

You just really need to find a host that isn't completely over-
committed on their servers, and who can prevent such attacks from
rendering everybody else's website useless, and ensuring that their
servers aren't constantly 100% loaded. Thats the problem with a lot
of shared hosts out there - they will cram users on web servers until
the CPU's are 100% full.

--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[Craig A. Finseth]

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn

What do you mean by "if the first record fails"? =A0How is that
detected, and how is the fail-over done. =A0If you mean that your
DNS server is unavailable, I have never had a DNS level failure
with my web site. =A0The issues are always slow pages or no pages.

DNS is round robin, so unless there is a load balancer in the mix,
then if the first record that the web browser tries fails, then the
site failes; not ideal.

Well, it depends.

The DNS routines return all addresses in the order that they get them,
and servers do a round robin. So, if there are three records, A, B,
and C, the first client gets ABC, the second gets BCA, the third gets
CAB, and so on. So, different clients get records in a different
order (modulo the number of records, of course).

If the first record fails, the client will time out. Whether the
client goes on to the next record or just gives up is up to the
application writer (some do, some don't). It's out of the DNS' hands
at that point.

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn

If I have 2 parallel web sites at different hosts, how would you
detect when one goes down, and how would that traffic get
redirected to the 2nd site? =A0The only thing I can think of is

There are a variety of methods, but this must be engineered by the
service provider. The techniques are obvious, but out of scope.

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn

to constantly monitor one site from a 3rd location, and switch
DNS entries if the first one goes down. =A0But since it can take
up to 3 days for DNS to propagate, that isn't much of a
solution for continuous availability. =A0Is there any reasonable
solution short of getting an F5 BigIP box? =A0That requires

Or a Cisco box, or one by any of a variety of other vendors. Linux
also has this capability.

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn

dedicated hosting and a reliable connection to the Internet, so you
are right back in the same pickle. =A0The only real

If you are after H/A, it makes much more sense to start with solid
infrastructure, then add the redundnacy. So, yes, you're talking
about solid hosting centers which themselves have multiple power
sources, external links, etc.

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn
The time it takes for DNS to propagate is all dependent on what you
have set up for the TTL's in the DNS zone. You can make your records
expire after 60 seconds, so every minute DNS lookups need to be
refreshed.. which isn't ideal by any means.

Well, ideally. Many ISPs (incorrectly) disregard such TTL settings
and just hang on to records for a week or so, regardless of your TTL
values[*].

Solutions based on dynamic DNS values don't work: you need to have
fixed DNS->IP mappings and use routing protocols to move the IPs
around. This is doable, but expensive. For organizations that need
it, it's cheap.

If you aren't someone who has this level of resources, perhaps a
couple of hosts in a single data center are more up your alley...

Craig

[*] In their defense, a lot of DNS providers don't set TTLs to useful
values, either, so the ISPs have my sympathy. But not enough to
condone their screwing things up even more.

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

Post by Brian Elfert
I'm not sure how having a local web hosting company really helps these
days. Web hosting, like Internet access, is a total commodity at this
point.

Some people still like to try to keep business local if they can.

--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[Jules]

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

Threadjacking for a sec, but do any of the good MN ones support Plone? I
might have a need for a Plone-based site (or *some* free CMS, anyway) and
would prefer to support the local economy if I can...

cheers

Jules

[Kristofer Pettijohn]

Post by Jules
Threadjacking for a sec, but do any of the good MN ones support Plone? I
might have a need for a Plone-based site (or *some* free CMS, anyway) and
would prefer to support the local economy if I can...

I think Plone might be more of a specialty thing that some hosting
providers offer. Mainly because it runs on Zope which is the whole
Python application server package. I don't know of any local's that
have an option for it. Plone also as a "where to host" page at
http://plone.org/documentation/faq/where-can-i-host-my-plone-site

If there are features that Plone has that you want/need that you can't
get away from, then you might want to check the Plone hosting list. I
don't know if they give you any way to search by geographical location
of the company though. Otherwise any other hosting company of your
choice should offer the ability to host any of the free ones, even
with the option for point-and-click install of them.

--
Kristofer Pettijohn
***@cybernetik.net

[Jules]

Post by Kristofer Pettijohn
If there are features that Plone has that you want/need that you can't
get away from

No, not at all - I'm just looking at options for a low-traffic, simple
site that can be edited by people with very little in the way of IT skills
(the current site's CMS is a total disaster) and I'm very out of touch
with what there is at the lower end of the scale these days. I've known a
few folk who've used plone overseas and have heard good things about it
via them, but I suspected that finding hosting might be tricky.

(this is in part because I'm getting pressured into looking after the
site, and there's no way I want to do so given their current setup! It's
not content-heavy though, and their current CMS costs them money, so if I
can wave a test site at them which works better and also saves them $$ I
think they'd go for it)

cheers

Jules

[Doug McIntyre]

Post by Jules

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

Threadjacking for a sec, but do any of the good MN ones support Plone? I
might have a need for a Plone-based site (or *some* free CMS, anyway) and
would prefer to support the local economy if I can...

Plone, like Ruby on Rails, or JSP tends not to play well with others
in a shared hosting environment. There's a few specialized places that
try, but the security model isn't as robust as Apache/CGI/PHP or IIS shared
hosting environments, and they just hope for the best doing it,
restrict you back a bunch to put in some security, etc.

Its more of an environment needing a VPS setup instead, which once
you are running on a VPS, you can do whatever server setup you want...

Drupal and Joomla seems to fit back into Apache/PHP model better, but
we've seen security issues because these platforms are probed pretty
heavily for security issues (due to their widespread use), and
customers tend not to update them.

We don't want to be in the model of updating their code for them in
shared hosting environment, due to exchanges like. My site's xxx
module doesn't work any more, what's wrong? We updated the main code
to block xyz security issue, and that module doesn't work in the new
version, and we can't test every single page of your site to verify if
everything works the way you expect. Why not?

Managed VPS hosting would be different, but tends to get up there in
pricing again.

[j***@gmail.com]

Judging by my experience, http://vpswebserver.com provide inexpensive VPSes powerful enough for Drupal 6/7.

I only suggest to spend much time setting up efficient Web environment (add PHP cache, memcached, use MariaDB instead of MySQL and so on)

[Lutsen Lumberjack]

Post by John A. Weeks III
Since the topic of local ISPs has come up again, anyone have any
suggestions for a good local web hosting company? I want something
that is reliable, and one that lets me run CGI, PERL, and Java.

Confucius say:
"There is great deal of difference between hosting company and outcall service."