the theory is that you are paying for the best c5 support out there,

Oh yeah, the theory is sound.

I'm just bummed I can"t automatically send clients to sign up for c5 hosting. $45/mth is too much for pretty much all of them. Before the $10 plan was a total no-brainer!

I can only imagine that the less expensive plans were overall a money loser. Too bad :-(

get a reseller acct on like hostgator for $20 a month and charge them $10 a month
there ya go :)

Wow, do you really think hostgator speed compares to c5 servers?

I haven't tried them but have a few others (A2, bluehost, innohosting). c5 was always clearly the fastest and worth having clients go through the pain of switching servers.

You can always go for a VPS... Plus with the new built in cache it's pretty fast even on shared.

btw hostgator does provide top notch support. Best way to get the experts is through their ticket system. I've gotten a reply in a matter of hours.

I've had good luck with a Hostgator VPS as well. Based on my experience I'd recommend no lower than the 1.3GB RAM offering. Chat & Ticket support has been consistent.

Thanks for the recommendations!

I've never gone the VPS route because I have zero interest in managing a server. That's why I was so happy with c5's offering... it gave server-phobes like me a finely-tuned c5 presentation machine with no configuration necessary. A dream come true!

Maybe they'll come up with a lower-priced plan for the masses again. Or maybe "the masses" are exactly why they don't have a lower-priced plan anymore :-)

Well just to let you know you can get hostgator's vps managed plan with cpanel.

Which might be better for you. They take of everything! Plus if you need something done on the side it's pretty cheap!

We love the masses. We just cant compete with the big budget hosts and thei=
r race to the bottom. If it's worth it to your business to have a single po=
int of contact that can solve all problems, our hosting is very affordable. I=
f you've got some DIY energy and patience with your web presence, any of the=
hosts at the top of our hosting page do a great job of keeping prices low a=
nd quality high.

Best wishes,
(Pecked out on a mobile device...)
http://about.me/frz

On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Concrete5 Community <discussions@concretecms.co=
m> wrote:

>=20

Glad c5 works better than your mobile auto spell-checker, Franz.
Lol.
I'm w/ Bluehost, and it took a bit of work to get Pretty URLs working, but other than that, everything is great. Could use a little more speed, but it's not bad for the price and quality of service.
Cheers.

frz: I totally understand about the race to the bottom

themeguru: thanks for the tip on hostgator's managed vps

everyone: a recent client is hosted with Canvas Dreams (coincidentally located in Portland, OR, land of c5) and I was impressed with their speed and support (called once and they picked up in two rings). And I'm a sucker for the wind-powered schtick. Worth checking out.

Hey, frz.... just curious about the inclusion of SiteCloud hosting when you've been vocally against using cloud hosting for c5. Not trying to catch you in an "a-ha!"... just wondering why they've been elevated to a recommended host. Thanks!

Well after reading about some cloud hosting people are wanting it. Think cloud not claude :P

I don't think it would be up there if it wasn't good.

they saw my diatribe in the blog and offered us a demo setup.

we tested it against other setups and found it to be acceptable.

I still maintain that you can configure a faster site with a dedicated server or array of them.

Cloud hosting may be slower out of the gate, but i think you can probably rely on it being consistently slower as your traffic ramps up.

There's certainly value in that type of thing. For example, concrete5.org right now is running on a pretty pimped out box and its starting to run into the edges of what just one machine can be configured to do. We can look at using RAM disks for cache, or building a few apache servers and load balancing - but one might also wonder if we had the thing running in the cloud if we couldn't just move up to 40 processors and 80 gigs of ram or whatever.

frankly, i dunno. It's certainly a fad and in that way there's probably a small element of truth and value to it that is blown out of proportion by everyone else.

What i can say is I've seen some cloud setups (from the most well known providers) just completely suck for anything that requires a middleware layer.

I've also seen some cloud setups that seem acceptably fast, SiteCloud.com amongst them.

I had a couple of horror stories with a certain "cloud" host with the initials M and T... so I'm scarred.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Franz. I love that you're so active in these forums!