Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Managed ASP Web Hosts? 79

maumedia asks: "I'm hoping someone can help me here, as I'm nearing frantic on this issue. I need a good Windows/ASP managed host -- a company that will manage/troubleshoot a dedicated server for us. My research has turned up either shared hosts, or dedicated hosts, and not very much in-between. If we're not ready to hire a sysadmin and pay for our own backbone, but we've outgrown the massively-shared hosting system, where can we go? I'm really hoping for an answer that doesn't involve a move to PHP/Linux, as it makes much more sense to us to utilize the resources we have at hand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Managed ASP Web Hosts?

Comments Filter:
  • ASP on Linux (Score:4, Informative)

    by delirium of disorder ( 701392 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @08:50PM (#15640972) Homepage Journal
    I can't recommend a specific provider, but I would like to point out that moving to Linux does not mean abandoning your ASP code. Java System ASP [sun.com] is cross platform; you can provide ASP content using a Linux, Windows, Solaris, or other *nix server.
    • Re:ASP on Linux (Score:3, Informative)

      by mkiwi ( 585287 )
      I recently migrated a legacy ASP server in my company (previously all Windows and Cisco servers/firewalls) to a Linux box and have had no problems. If you need ASP .NET support on Linux then you're SOL, but as far as VBScript goes (ugh) it will run fine. You can also use your existing Access databases (which I assume you have) by connecting across the network. Sun's solution works, and I believe there are a few more implementations out there if you so wish to try them.

      Really though, you should migrate

      • Re:ASP on Linux (Score:3, Informative)

        by imemyself ( 757318 )
        If you need ASP .NET support on Linux then you're SOL,

        That's not entirely true, mod_mono can do atleast some ASP.NET stuff on Linux. It may not run everything, but you're not totally SOL, especially if you can tweak the ASP.NET code to make it run on Mono.
        • Not to start a flamewar but .NET was designed for vendor lockin as a solution to Microsoft's threat with Java Enterprise edition.

          Mono is still alpha depending on which libraries you use. Does it even support winforms yet? .Net 2.0 is coming with VS.net 2005 and Mono has still not caught up with VS.net 2003.

          C#.net is a great technology. Especially if your an MS shop that needs MS integration with win32 apps for your intranet servers.

          But cross platform it is not and its a MS technology just like win32 is, tho
          • Re:ASP on Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

            by batkiwi ( 137781 )
            What does windows.forms support have to do with ASP.NET?
          • Not to start a flamewar but

            You just did. It wouldn't hurt to do a little Google research, as most of the things you say are so untrue that I'd mod you -1 Flamebait/Astroturf if I had the points.

            Does it even support winforms yet?

            Yes. [mono-project.com]

            .Net 2.0 is coming with VS.net 2005 and Mono has still not caught up with VS.net 2003.

            Most of the 1.0 code is complete. [mono-project.com] 2.0 isn't complete, but what's implemented should work. [mono-project.com]

            But cross platform it is not and its a MS technology just like win32 is, though you can have

            • Daemon Tools (Score:1, Offtopic)

              by Decker-Mage ( 782424 )
              Off-topic but not off-reply. There are legitimate uses for tools such as Daemon-Tools. After buying my fourth set of Diablo II/LoD CD's, I got more than a little irritated and that is not the only copy protected game that I have had to replace over the years. Now I use Daemon-Tools and play from an image file on my hard-drive and if Blizzard or anyone else doesn't like it, tough. They have enough of my money already. I do not pirate.

              I'm not surprised that Daemon-Tools doesn't work though on Wine give

            • And really, you don't need 100% compatibility. Getting 99% compatibility probably means you get 99% of people able to switch to Linux, which means the 1% stuck on Windows are about as relevant as the 1% currently stuck on DOS.

              Not to denigrate what was otherwise a magnificent rant, but it could also mean that a 100% of the people get their applications to work 99% of the time, the 1% constituting what is technically known as an "intolerable pain in the ass".

              WINE is supririsingly good. But until vendors star
              • it could also mean that a 100% of the people get their applications to work 99% of the time, the 1% constituting what is technically known as an "intolerable pain in the ass".

                This is true. It's also possible that 99% is good enough. It depends what your business is, but let's say you can do everything in Office but save a Word doc as HTML. Fine, you're on Linux already anyway -- have Beagle or a Cron job run a WordML-to-XSLT converter. Or have it done when you upload it.

                Even without programming, I've

            • Winforms is still not complete and Linus Torvalds recommends win32 users to use Windows instead of wine on Linux. Infact he used MS Office on windows exclusively at Transmeta and refused to touch wine.

              Dont drink the koolaid. C# is an excellent language but I would not bet my job on a cross platform web site with it. For that I would use java or php. ASP.Net is a great Windows based solution and I have not seen one single application that is available for Windows and Unix written from teh same codebase in .N
              • Linus Torvalds recommends win32 users to use Windows instead of wine on Linux. Infact he used MS Office on windows exclusively at Transmeta and refused to touch wine.

                Citation, please? Oh, and how long ago was he at Transmeta? Wine has been getting much better lately (past year or two), and so has OpenOffice.

                Dont drink the koolaid. C# is an excellent language but I would not bet my job on a cross platform web site with it. For that I would use java or php.

                And I'd use mod_perl or mod_python. Point is, i

    • I've been with Brinkster for 4 or so now and I have never had a single problem. Their services are top notch including helpful FAQ's, code samples, great forums, and LIVE customer online or phone support. They are incredible. They offer both Windows or Linux services with just about every feature you could possible ask for. http://www.brinkster.com/ [brinkster.com]
  • I'm confused! (Score:3, Informative)

    by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @08:51PM (#15640973) Journal
    You say you need a dedicated hosting, but can only find shared and dedicated hosting. Isn't the second of those what you want? Seems everywhere I look offers what you are looking for unless I'm misunderstanding something. GoDaddy.com offers ASP/ASP.NET hosting as either shared, dedicated, or even dedicated virtual servers. I'm confused I guess on what your looking for.
    • Reason?

      Go lookup last week's (or 2 weeks ago news) under the spam section here on slashdot? Godaddy has done some unethical things with leaving their sendmail relay's open and then closing your account and hijacking your domain for punishment for spamming even though someone else spammed by using their open relay under your domain name. Sleezy and could be expensive for several days of downtime while your legal team faxes threatening documents until your domain name is released back.

      Even if you own your do
    • Submitter wants a fully managed dedicated server - essentially a dedicated server that is looked after by the host just like a shared server would be. Most dedicated servers are not fully managed.

      If I were submitter, I'd be asking the host they are with now if they can supply a dedicated server and do all the management on it, at what cost.
  • Not to be a negative Nancy but since Apache is 70% of the market (not including domain parking), it's not really a profitable area for people to do managed hosting for such a small market. It's funny because I get this same run around from people when I tell them I run Linux... but in this case, the reverse is true; LAMP (linux, apache, mysql and php) are the standard that the web revolves around and having gone with ASP and IIS sort of leaves you in a bind.

    Honestly, I can also say that it is not going to g
    • Um, 30% of the market is still an astronomical amount of webhosting. And most of that 70% is geared toward extremely basic static pages because it's so cheap to host basic stuff on a free platform. On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that a larger chunk of the 30% is geared toward production ASP/ASP.Net hosting for the same reason.

      • Not even 30% and the gains made ever so recently were due to deals made with hosting companies doing domain parking... not ACTIVE sites. I'd be willing to bet that basic sites still get more hits than a parked domain anyday. :)

        Any web server can handle a parked domain that gets no traffic.

        Besides lets not forget the last time Microsoft made a big push with IIS; tons of people switched then too and they actually had 35% of the market. Thats when people realized that their servers couldn't handle the load and
        • Re:Good Luck (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by toadlife ( 301863 )
          "...the fact still remains that Apache is far better, far faster and far more secure than Microsoft has ever been... which is why they have always had the market."

          Better? What exactly do you mean by "better"?

          Faster? Perhaps, but by who's measure? I've never seen a useful (yes, Microsoft's don't count as useful) Apache/IIS performance comparison.

          More secure? Why do you think that? IIS6 has never had a critical vulnerability discovered for it. In the same time frame you can't say that for Apache 1.x and 2.x.

          S
          • Faster? Perhaps, but by who's measure? I've never seen a useful (yes, Microsoft's don't count as useful) Apache/IIS performance comparison.

            Meausre yourself. Apache doesn't have the same overhead. Use the exact same computer and install IIS on Windows. Do the same with Apache on Linux. Optimize them both as much as you want; for Linux, run without Xwindows and shut down all other unecessary services. Now see which handles 1000 concurrent requests better. You will find that the Apache webserver can run using

            • When I said critical I meant vulnerabilities that could cause the server to be compromised. IIS6 had never had any.

              Now lets analyze your last post...

              "How about a buffer overflow exploit? Doies that count?
              http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure [grok.org.uk] /2005-April/033445.html"


              Sorry, but that one does count because it's not real.

              "How about this long list as compiled by a Microsoft MVP?
              http://msmvps.com/blogs/bernard/archive/2004/06/10 [msmvps.com] /7882.aspx"


              That list counts every vulnerability in Win2k3 since it was
              • Wow. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt is it?

                1. you say #1 is a fake when it was patched before a exploit was published? If you say so. After all you know the inner workings of Microsofts patches better than security experts.

                2. In link #2, They specifically explain where those explots affects IIS6. Feel free to read and follow links. You can read can't you? I'm beginning to doubt it.

                3. Link #3 again specifically states IIS6. Again, you ability to read is lacking.

                4. Bringing up IIS5 is important because peo
                • You make too many assumptions about me. I administer both Apache and IIS machines. IIS5 was crap (I hated looking after those boxes), but IIS6 is decent. I've never had any issues with Apache. I'm just happen to not a zealot* like some other people.

                  And BTW. You should not talk about denial. That first exploit is not real. It was posted as a joke to troll gullible people like you. Why don't you actually read the exploit carefully, and if you're still not sure read the *reply* to the posting.

                  *like the fuckhe
                  • I'm just happen to not a zealot* like some other people...


                    In the face of overwhelming evidence, denial is still the default state. One must admire you ability to equate fact with zealotry. I salute you sir and the fantasy world in which you live.
                    • "In the face of overwhelming evidence, denial is still the default state."

                      The only thing I've seen overwhelming evidence of, is that you don't have very good reading comprehension, you view open source software as a panacea, and you are a card carrying member of the ihatemicro$oft club.

                      "One must admire you ability to equate fact with zealotry."

                      I'm equating your denial of facts with zealotry. By posting exchange 2003 vulnerabilities and claiming that they are IIS vulnerabilities, you are not being honest wit
                    • The only thing I've seen overwhelming evidence of, is that you don't have very good reading comprehension, you view open source software as a panacea, and you are a card carrying member of the ihatemicro$oft club.

                      ...and because you can pigeonhole and troll, it must mean that facts don't matter. I may have flaws with my reading comprehension but IO at least make up for it with my understanding of logic and the ability to detect dubios logic. Sadly, the fantasy world in which you live would crumble to the ho

                    • You are confusing me now. You say that I live in a 'fantasy world'. That would imply that I've said and believe something that is not true. What have I said that is untrue? My main point has been that IIS6 has never had any serious vulnerabilities since it was released. Is secunia [secunia.com] living in a fantasy world too?
                    • You are confusing me now. You say that I live in a 'fantasy world'.

                      Someone get this man a cup of coffee! I think he's regaining conciousness.

                      My main point has been that IIS6 has never had any serious vulnerabilities since it was released. Is secunia living in a fantasy world too?

                      And from that webpage...

                      The Secunia database currently contains 0 Secunia advisories marked as "Unpatched", which affects Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.

                      Recognize the word 'unpatched'? Notice that it does not say 'h

                    • "Notice that it does not say 'has zero exploits'."

                      Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that IIS6 had no vulnerabilities. I said it had no critical vulnerabilities. The highest rated vulnerability listed on that secunia page is listed as moderately critical - It only poses a DoS threat. By critical, I simply meant none that could lead to the server being compromised. I actually clarified that point waaaaaaay back in this post [slashdot.org], but apparently you missed it. You missing things seems to be a common theme.
                    • Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that IIS6 had no vulnerabilities. I said it had no critical vulnerabilities


                      And when I pointed them out, you casually dismissed them. Even though they WERE vulnerabilities, some of which were critical and ALL of which had an effect on IIS.

                      But that didn't count cause I stepped over the line and it was a Tuesday and you had your fingers crossed... right?
                    • Unfortunately I don't have enough mod points do mod you both down -1 trolls on all of your posts.
    • This is true, but if you have a lot of code already written in ASP, then it can be hard to move to PHP. However, I'm sure all the functionality is there, and that it can be done. There's probably even some automated tools that could switch all the code for you. But then what. You're current developers will not only have to learn PHP, but have to learn how to use it effectively enough to support your new application. Retraining everyone can be costly and time consuming. Also you can't get rid of these
      • I agree that uprooting the technology just to make shopping for hosting doesn't make much sense - especially if things are working, right now, with people that are using and maintaining it. However:

        Although I think they should try to get away from ASP. That's super old technology. It has many problems that will help them in the future when they want to expand their business.

        I don't know if you can say, without knowing more, whether ASP is inadequate for their use. A healthy, well-designed ASP app can
    • The phb's like integration and think going with an all MS solution can somehow save them money. Especially with a MS salesmen selling IIS and .NET.

      So the geeks are usually told what to use and to do it. Also believe it or not an MS solution can be the appropriate one. It can integrate with access and w2k domain logins nice.
      • All web servers and lanmguages can. LDAP is an open protocol. We run a LAMP architecture at work that I integrated with the Windows network logins.
    • Re:Good Luck (Score:1, Flamebait)

      Not to be a negative Nancy but since Apache is 70% of the market

      Apache is 0% of the market. IE, Firefox, and their peers are. When you sell webhosting you aren't selling a product -- you're selling space on mall, and virtually no one cares if you use FedEx or UPS to get your books to your store, so long as they're in English (HTML) when they get them.

      In contrast, if you write for Linux, you CANNOT just give your app to Windows users and have them get as much out of it as Linux users. (While if you write
      • Your metaphor is mixed. If you choose to compare the web to delivery of packages, then Firefox and IE are method for accepting that delivery; little more than mail slots in that since.

        When a company wants to deliver that 'packet' (excuse the pun), the want a delivery method that is reliable, sturdy, inexpensive and a carrier that can handle the load of packages that they send on a daily basis. This decision is made by the business owner sending those packets... not the end user.

        To the end user, this is all
        • Knowing that and knowing Apaches market share, who would you say is more reliable?

          Reliability and Usability are not the same thing--and neither is market share. Apache has the size of the market it does because, more than other resons, the cost of an Apache box is hardware + setup, not hardware + setup + software fees. (And the fee to get anything as good as Apache is well more than the cost to pay someone to setup Apache.)

          If there were NO reasons to choose IIS over Apache, we wouldn't be having this disc
          • Reliability and Usability are not the same thing--and neither is market share.

            So immediately you say reliability and market share don't matter? Well maybe if I didn't own a business or wasn't a government agency and reliability of my data from a known market leader didn't matter, then yes... those two wouldn't really matter. If all I worried about was sharing pictures of my family with others members of my family then yes. You are 100% correct. If having a website that only got hit by 5 friends, then yes. r

            • So immediately you say reliability and market share don't matter?

              no. Please go back to grade school, and spend some time on reading comprehension.

              The current version of IIS (6) is far better than the previous version (5) when it comes to just about everything. And while there are probably still a few holes here and there, the same is true of an Apache-based LAMP setup. Is IIS better than Apache, when it comes to serving static HTML or PHP? No, not at all. Is IIS more expensive, if you count the OS cost
              • You still neglect to talk about reliability. Apache uptimes are CONSISTENTLY 2-4 times greater than IIS. This is still true for 6. This is a dual problem of the OS and IIS... and since IIS is tied into the OS (yes there are DLL's loaded at runtime even if you are NOT running IIS), issues with the OS are often issues for IIS.

                And sure, I think that there is a market for all web servers. I know of one still being sold using 'server side javascript' (no joke). But when you get something for free, that has bette
      • Apache is 0% of the market. IE, Firefox, and their peers are. When you sell webhosting you aren't selling a product -- you're selling space on mall, and virtually no one cares if you use FedEx or UPS to get your books to your store, so long as they're in English (HTML) when they get them.

        The bookstore manager cares. And the customers start caring if the bookstore rises its prices to cover the inefficiency of the delivery method, or if the store is closed every now and then because the deliveries couldn'

    • Your on crack. There are managed web hosts all over the place for Windows/ASP/.NET I could post a few but everybody can use Google. Most major hosts over both. Also Apache has 70% because of domain parking.
  • Look at the top of your screen. Ive been seeing rackspace banner adds for a decade. In the Internet world, that means something. Go with them, or one of their high-volume cookie cutter competitors.

    A better choice might be a local "solutions" company. They might not have backup generators, or n+1 AC units, but there are plenty of places better then your closet.. If your in a city with, say, >500,000 people then you have at least a couple of consulting shops who would do hosting. Their "management" might b
  • it just seems to me like you guys are being stubborn about going the route you should be going. If you've out grow the shared environment,it's time to contract a sys admin. there are plenty out there that are willing to work on a contract basis.

    That said, i've encountered data centers that have system administration services for an additional cost. I would suggest you start by talking to your data center and see if they offer this service or if they know of contacts you can talk to. If they don't do it, the
    • There's lots of sysadmins out there. The problem is finding a good one. I know lots of people who do sysadmin work. Even Microsoft Certified Systems Admins. A lot of these people have no idea what they are doing. A good sys admin is hard to find, and they are expensive. Not only that, if you aren't a sys admin yourself, then it's hard to interview one and really get a sense if they really know their stuff. I'm not aware of any agencies that will conduct interviews for you for positions you don't know h
      • Not only that, if you aren't a sys admin yourself, then it's hard to interview one and really get a sense if they really know their stuff

        Yes. And using an outside agency to find, interview, and recruit said person is going to cost you more, just once, than a whole year of co-lo hosting of a box and some periodic rent-a-brain time from a pro.
      • I'm not aware of any agencies that will conduct interviews for you for positions you don't know how to fill. How do you interview an accountant when you don't know anything about accounting?

        Actually, there are lots of companies, small and large, that do just this. The proper term is usually "recruitment and placement firms," but most people just call them "headhunters." Basically you find one that specializes in your business area (technology, education, whatever) and explain to them the kind of person you

    • If you've out grow the shared environment, it's time to contract a sys admin.

      Isn't that what a hosting provider is? Don't the companies that offer shared, dedicated or managed servers "admin" them?

      That might beg the question of what specifically a sys admin does, but that goes beyond the scope of this thread, maybe. Or maybe the answer to that would help define "managed" host.
  • Rackspace (Score:3, Informative)

    by beavis88 ( 25983 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @09:05PM (#15641015)
    Fairly expensive, but they seem to know what they're doing, and most importantly to a company like mine without lots of dedicated tech staff, they give a damn about solving your problems quickly and correctly.
  • Maybe www.2advanced.net might be up your alley.
  • Rackspace (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zburner07 ( 955445 )

    I would definitely recommend Rackspace. As part of my job I have dealt with them for several setups for both our own projects and projects. They're not kidding when they say that they have fanatical support, they've always been super responsive, given clear warnings about anything going on that might effect our service, and have proven extremely knowledgable. In addition to maintaining your server they are also very good at helping you grow and scale your enviroment as you need.

    Rackspace is definitely

  • www.webhost4life.com [webhost4life.com] and www.serverintellect.com [serverintellect.com]. I have been happy with both. While not having used their dedicated services ( i went straight to colocation ), i have been more than happy with their shared/virtual services.
  • We [magportal.com] have been using INetU [inetu.net] for 6 years and have been very happy with them. We are hosted on FreeBSD/Apache, but INetU offers Windows/IIS too. Tech support has always been very responsive (usually can get someone on the phone immediately) for FreeBSD, and the machines have been very reliable.
  • One, you are asking a linux-based culture about windows and ASP. I could tell you ahead of time that it won't work.
    Two, (Wait, I just thought of one. 1and1 [1and1.com] is where I get my LAMP hosting, but reciently they have been doing Win2003 hosting.) ASP is not the industry standard, so seriously consider porting your code to work with ASP-on-linux or even better Perl or PHP on GNU+Linux. It will save you a lot of time in the end.

    Seriously.
  • by WankersRevenge ( 452399 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @09:46PM (#15641152)
    Though Slashdot does cater to the tech heads, I recommend you check out webhostingtalk.com [webhostingtalk.com] being it caters exclusively to webhosts and webmasters with a gazillion members. Not only will find the answer to your question but you'll also have a good place to research any hosts hosts - sketchy or otherwise. I'm not affiliated with them, but I've found all my hosts through them. It's a great community. Good luck!
    • This is the answer you are seeking.

      Ignore most of the uninformed comments on /. about this subject - go to WHT and get a proper, considered answer from people who have your same issue. (and you'll get good, informed, unbiased answers from Linux users too)
  • by xnixman ( 644195 )
    I use and like goDaddy.

    Cheap and reliable. They do Linux/php and Windows/asp.

  • Mosso [mosso.com] uses server clusters lets you run both ASP and PHP on the same setup for $100 a month. No root access, but an interesting blend of features. Might be more accessible than VPS, which is the other choice between shared and dedicated. It's owned by Rackspace Managed Hosting.
  • I've worked with folks who work at this place for years (No, I don't work there, thanks for playing *grin*) and they do good work. Been in business for several years, host several thousand servers (not just several k v-sites), and actually have people with a clue, a real 24x7 NOC, etc. They're who I recommend to people for ASP stuff. http://www.maximumasp.com/ [maximumasp.com]
  • I've hosted a number of various machines with ThePlanet through Servermatrix [servermatrix.com] - they have some of the best pricing on the market and their backbone speed, network stability and uptime are comparable to a lot of the more expensive providers like Rackspace. They have managed solutions available for their windows servers last I checked.
  • I would highly recommend AdHost [adhost.com], a company in Seattle, which specializes in colocated and dedicated servers with great managed hosting plans. They have friendly and knowledgeable staff and in my experience have been very good to deal with.
  • I don't know what your geographic area and complete requirements are, but... buy a box, or two, or three, or four... and get a co-located setup with a provider such as CyrusOne. I am not associated with them in anyway but have done enough due diligence to know that these people are experts. http://www.cyrusone.com/ [cyrusone.com]

    They have both Windows and *nix professionals on hand 24x7x365 and there's various levels of 'management'.

    I hope this helps.
  • I have been using 1asphost for a long time maybe three years now. I just use the free service, but I highly recommend them.

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Working...