A large pharmaceutical company came to us for support last year, needing maintenance for over 15 product sites and server administration. Despite this, the client refused to change hosting providers or migrate to our virtual servers.



When we started setting up basic site monitoring, we encountered various issues due to shared web hosting's limitations. Monitoring was difficult without ssh access, and logging system events or tracking attacks and errors was not possible. It was also challenging to use Git to control changes to website files, and there was no access to logs. These problems could have been resolved with more modern hosting options like virtual servers, which offer greater flexibility and security features.

The Graylog system we use is not applicable on hosting without workarounds. Without access to logs, resolving issues becomes longer and more labor-intensive. Updating and configuring parameters on the web server is not possible with hosting, and installing SSL certificates can only be done through the control panel. Backup and scaling problems also arise with hosting that can be avoided with a virtual server.

Site availability is another issue we encountered, with over 30 hours of downtime and 270 alerts in just a few months. Although there were some improvements, it is important to consider the impact on resources and productivity before choosing hosting for your website.

Shared hosting problems are often exaggerated to push clients towards purchasing a VPS. However, this logic would suggest that a hardwired server is superior to a virtual one because resources are solely allocated to you. A server cluster provides even more benefits, including fault tolerance, while having multiple internet providers and dedicated optics increases reliability. You could even convince clients to build their own data center to solve all their issues and generate more profit for yourself.

In reality, there are two opposing forces at play: clients who want cheaper options and new contractors who want to maximize profits by overcharging clients for unnecessary services. Shared hosting is often portrayed as inadequate, but it may be a suitable option depending on the client's needs. It is important to provide appropriate solutions based on the client's requirements, rather than trying to upsell them on unnecessary products or services.

It is important to use appropriate tools for each task. One interesting case worth discussing is the transfer of a client to a VPS, and the economic feasibility of the project. This includes calculating losses due to hosting downtime, measuring the impact on customer acquisition and new orders, and estimating the amount of money saved through timely incident tracking. By doing so, it can be clearly demonstrated that shared hosting was not the optimal solution for the client's business needs.

However, instead of focusing on technical features of shared hosting and the client's specific situation, some providers may overstate the drawbacks of shared hosting to push clients towards VPS options. It is important to provide objective and personalized solutions based on the client's requirements and budget.

And for what such a weighty reason did the farm company refuse to transfer sites to your hosting? After all, it was clear that there would be problems associated with the management and monitoring of the work of the resource. And in general, this whole report just 'exposes' you as inexperienced beginners who have encountered non-unique problems and 'survey' this whole 'nightmare', and even share it with others.

Overall, I do not believe that there is a significant difference in uptime and response speed between VPS and shared hosting, nor does it affect search result rankings. Shared hosting can have the same 99.999 uptime as VPS, and seamless switching is also possible in case of issues. It is important to compare apples to apples when comparing shared hosting and VPS plans, rather than comparing a top-tier VPS provider to a subpar shared hosting service.

Ultimately, the choice between shared hosting and VPS depends on the complexity of your project and specific requirements. A simple business card website, for example, may be best suited for shared hosting. It is important to consider the needs of your project and choose an appropriate plan rather than assuming that more expensive options are always better.

It sounds like the limitations of shared web hosting made it difficult to properly monitor the sites and access logs, leading to longer resolution times for issues. Additionally, the lack of flexibility in updating server parameters and installing SSL certificates posed further challenges. The frequent downtime and alerts further highlight the importance of considering the impact on resources and productivity when choosing a hosting solution.

Shared web hosting is a form of hosting where multiple websites are hosted on the same server. While it may be a cost-effective option for some businesses, it often comes with limitations and drawbacks. For example, without SSH access, it becomes challenging to perform tasks like monitoring the website, tracking system events, or investigating attacks and errors that might occur. This lack of access to logs makes resolving issues more labor-intensive and time-consuming.

Another issue with shared hosting is the limited control over server configuration. You mentioned that updating and configuring parameters on the web server was not possible. This means that you may be restricted in terms of optimizing the server's performance or implementing specific security measures that suit your needs.

Additionally, shared hosting often limits your ability to use version control systems like Git effectively. With no access to logs, tracking changes to website files becomes difficult, which can hamper collaboration and make it harder to roll back changes if needed.

Furthermore, shared hosting may not offer the same level of scalability and backup options as virtual servers. Scaling up resources or handling sudden spikes in traffic can be challenging, and you may have limited control over backup processes and retention policies.

Considering the issues you faced with the pharmaceutical company's hosting, migrating to virtual servers or exploring other modern hosting options could potentially alleviate many of these challenges. Virtual servers offer greater flexibility, control, and security features compared to shared hosting, allowing for easier troubleshooting, improved monitoring, and tighter security measures.

Here are a few more points to consider regarding the hosting challenges you faced:

1. Security: Shared hosting often poses security risks because multiple websites are hosted on the same server. If one website gets compromised, it can potentially affect others as well. In contrast, virtual servers offer stronger isolation and security measures, reducing the risk of cross-contamination.

2. Performance: With shared hosting, your website's performance can be impacted by other websites on the same server. If a neighboring website experiences high traffic or resource-intensive processes, it can slow down your site. Virtual servers provide dedicated resources, allowing for better performance and scalability.

3. Customization and Control: Shared hosting typically limits your ability to customize server settings and install specific software or extensions. Virtual servers give you more control over the environment, enabling you to configure parameters, install required software, and make changes according to your specific needs.

4. Flexibility: Virtual servers offer greater flexibility in terms of resource allocation. You can easily scale up or down depending on your website's requirements, ensuring optimal performance during peak times while avoiding unnecessary expenses during quieter periods.

5. Support: Depending on your hosting provider, shared hosting may come with limited support options. On the other hand, virtual servers often provide more robust support channels, including direct access to system administrators who can assist with troubleshooting and resolving issues promptly.

By considering these factors, you can make a more informed decision about the hosting solution that best suits your needs. While shared hosting may be suitable for smaller websites with low traffic and fewer customization requirements, virtual servers can offer enhanced security, performance, customization, and scalability for more demanding applications or businesses.

Quote from: Franklin on Oct 14, 2022, 09:15 AMA large pharmaceutical company came to us for support last year, needing maintenance for over 15 product sites and server administration. Despite this, the client refused to change hosting providers or migrate to our virtual servers.



When we started setting up basic site monitoring, we encountered various issues due to shared web hosting's limitations. Monitoring was difficult without ssh access, and logging system events or tracking attacks and errors was not possible. It was also challenging to use Git to control changes to website files, and there was no access to logs. These problems could have been resolved with more modern hosting options like virtual servers, which offer greater flexibility and security features.

The Graylog system we use is not applicable on hosting without workarounds. Without access to logs, resolving issues becomes longer and more labor-intensive. Updating and configuring parameters on the web server is not possible with hosting, and installing SSL certificates can only be done through the control panel. Backup and scaling problems also arise with hosting that can be avoided with a virtual server.

Site availability is another issue we encountered, with over 30 hours of downtime and 270 alerts in just a few months. Although there were some improvements, it is important to consider the impact on resources and productivity before choosing hosting for your website.

A slow loading website drives visitors away and can negatively impact your search engine rankings. Slow loading times are often caused by overloaded servers, outdated hardware, or inefficient software.