Gizmo's Freeware Forum - View Single Post

chris.p · 05. Apr 2009, 04:44 AM

000webhost review

OK, I put a site on the free 000webhost to try it out. Got some interesting info too.

They are one of the biggest hosts on the Net. Another branch of the company is Hosting24, the paid version, and the backbone is supplied by Dreamhost. Various geoip resources show the server as being in San Fran or Vegas - but YouGetSignal has the most up to date online IP database I know, and they put it in Vegas (DNSstuff as well, of course, but I like watching the YGS visual traceroute).

Free hosted packages are on servers with a lot of sites. A whole lot. Here, they have a paid upgrade that moves you onto a server with 300. This is around the normal shared hosting figure, you'd pay £20 - £60 ($30 - $90) a year for this level of service. A host with slightly less, say 200 sites per server, would maybe charge at the top end of this.

Quality shared hosting providers keep the maximum number of sites per server to 50 - but you have to pay for this service level, obviously. You can find it at around £120 / $200 a year.

You can easily see the difference it makes to a database-driven website - the pages load faster and sharper with lower numbers of sites on a server. There is a clear difference in the page load speed for a CMS, blog or ecommerce site on a 50-site server compared to a 200-site server. And 300 site servers also show a further difference - so the graph is started to steepen here.

000webhost tell you they may have up to 30,000 sites per server. Well, I found the catch, then! The largest number I've seen before was 3,400 on a popular US economy host, via a reverse IP check for a known site. We'll have to see how it works out...

The first problem I've found is they run the weird virtual path to root system that 1&1 do, where the webroot's physical location is not the same as the filepath. This creates a lot of problems with SEF URLs and htaccess scripts. I never had to work with this before as I simply refused, the site was moved instead

Now, I'm gonna try and sort it, for a laugh. Major headache, gotta tell you - can't get WordPress to function at all. Oh well.

05. Apr 2009, 04:44 AM	#2 (permalink)
chris.p Foundation Editor Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Kent, UK Posts: 1,600	000webhost review 000webhost review OK, I put a site on the free 000webhost to try it out. Got some interesting info too. They are one of the biggest hosts on the Net. Another branch of the company is Hosting24, the paid version, and the backbone is supplied by Dreamhost. Various geoip resources show the server as being in San Fran or Vegas - but YouGetSignal has the most up to date online IP database I know, and they put it in Vegas (DNSstuff as well, of course, but I like watching the YGS visual traceroute). Free hosted packages are on servers with a lot of sites. A whole lot. Here, they have a paid upgrade that moves you onto a server with 300. This is around the normal shared hosting figure, you'd pay £20 - £60 ($30 - $90) a year for this level of service. A host with slightly less, say 200 sites per server, would maybe charge at the top end of this. Quality shared hosting providers keep the maximum number of sites per server to 50 - but you have to pay for this service level, obviously. You can find it at around £120 / $200 a year. You can easily see the difference it makes to a database-driven website - the pages load faster and sharper with lower numbers of sites on a server. There is a clear difference in the page load speed for a CMS, blog or ecommerce site on a 50-site server compared to a 200-site server. And 300 site servers also show a further difference - so the graph is started to steepen here. 000webhost tell you they may have up to 30,000 sites per server. Well, I found the catch, then! The largest number I've seen before was 3,400 on a popular US economy host, via a reverse IP check for a known site. We'll have to see how it works out... The first problem I've found is they run the weird virtual path to root system that 1&1 do, where the webroot's physical location is not the same as the filepath. This creates a lot of problems with SEF URLs and htaccess scripts. I never had to work with this before as I simply refused, the site was moved instead Now, I'm gonna try and sort it, for a laugh. Major headache, gotta tell you - can't get WordPress to function at all. Oh well. __________________ . . . . . . . Web Business Management Last edited by chris.p; 05. Apr 2009 at 03:55 PM.