Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for hosting for an ASP.NET MVC 1.0 app. I've narrowed down with research to either asphostportal, asphostcentral, godaddy, or 1&1. I've ruled out crystaltech and softsyshosting due to price with better plans.
Will be running a small e-commerce site written with ASP.NET MVC 1.0 and want to be sure it will work, as well as looking for cheapest price with best value in regards to disk space/bandwidth. And bandwidth is basically how much data can be sent from your site per month right? Any opinions appreciated as I'm finding this tough to narrow down. I know you can bin deploy MVC but heard full trust mode is required as well as some routing rules in IIS. 1&1 says they can't enable full trust.
This is what I was looking at:
name data(disk space/bandwidth) price MVCenabled
crystal tech 500MB/50GB 7.95 + 7.95 setup
2000MB/200GB 16.95
softsyshosting 500MB/5GB 3.50 + 12/year domain
1000MB/10GB 5.84
3000MB/30GB 13.33
asphostportal 5GB/50GB 5.75 + 8.99/year yes
10GB/100GB 10.25
asphostcentral 2GB/15GB 4.99 yes
3GB/30GB 7.99/month domain free
5GB/40GB 11.99
godaddy 10GB/300GB 10.69 + 4.74/month
150GB/1500GB 6.99/month
1&1 10GB/unlimited 3.99 + free domain
150GB/unlimited 6.99
1&1 seems to be best value if MVC app will work. I'm a bit confused on bandwidth being unlimited. May seem like a good thing, but what if one website on the server is a resource hog because of this?
I assume you are looking for "Shared Hosting"? If so, I can tell you from experience that running a web site from shared hosting can become a nightmare because you only have so much control over the setup.
I went with a Virtual Private Server (VPS), which gives you complete control over a virtual server... (remote desktop, admin rights, etc). I ended up going with 1&1 for a Windows VPS that runs about $30 a month, and I have been very happy with it (I have multiple MVC sites running on it).
If this is going to be a serious web site, I would consider a VPS over shared hosting. Hope this helps!
Bin deploying the ASP.NET MVC does not require full trust. My host (LiquidSix) runs its shared hosting options with a Medium trust setup, and I've bin deployed the both System.Web.Mvc.dll and Microsoft.Web.Mvc.dll to the site with no major issues.
Also, ASP.NET MVC runs in Medium Trust, so it should work with most hosting providers’ Medium Trust policies. It’s always possible that a hosting provider customizes their Medium Trust policy to be draconian.
The only downside with them at the moment is they are still running on IIS6, and I've not asked them/tried to set up a wild card mapping to the ASP.NET handler - so my site requires the standard work around of controllers having a .aspx extension.
One nice benefit of using the .aspx extension instead of .mvc is that you don’t have to worry about mapping the .aspx extension. It should already be mapped assuming you have ASP.NET installed properly on the machine.
Ended up going with GoDaddy for now. Got a good deal. $1.99 domain with deluxe package. Went with deluxe as found 20% off promo code with a google search. Paid $65 total. Will be able to jump to a dedicated server for a reasonable price as well if needed.
Thanks
Do not use asphostportal. They've been spamming the StackExchange network like crazy. Just do a google search for "asphostportal stackexchange" and you'll see tons of posts by users who link to their site in every answer (even when it's completely irrelevant and the question poster isn't asking for web hosting recommendations).
I'd be weary of doing business with any company that advertises their services by spamming online communities, regardless of how good their prices are. It's just unprofessional and not to mention scummy.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
My team and I are currently building a Ruby on Rails web application (SaaS model) that will be used by at least 5k users, and there will be probably more after.
While we reach the end of the development process I was wondering what kind of hosting we were going to use.
I first thought about using a standard web server with Nginx and Puma, and a second server dedicated to the database, but the scalability is a thing that we really want. So I started to check for an alternative solution (knowing the fact that no one of our team is an admin), and I end up on Heroku.
So, my question is why should I use something like Heroku ? After watching the prices I've the feeling it's going to cost more than a standard server for less performances, but i'm still intrigued by it : if people use it, there must be a reason.
Heroku & DigitalOcean etc, are just services which make deploying to "cloud" hosting easier. Heroku uses AWS's computing infrastructure to host your apps, but provides an environment to help deploy them easier:
Why do people use Heroku when AWS is present? What distinguishes Heroku from AWS?
Heroku vs...
Some of the important points to note about Heroku is you don't have direct access to your database, as well as relying on their infrastructure to hold up (E.G if something happens to their datacenters -- which has happened before -- you're at the mercy of Heroku & AWS's engineers).
There are two issues we have with them:
You're obliged to use their AWS Postgres DB
You've got to route through Heroku's domain
--
Choice
The choice you really have is whether to use something like RackSpace (like us), or use a service such as Heroku or DigitalOcean. To me, there is not much difference, as Heroku / DO just provide an environment to push to VPS's running on their respective partner hosting providers.
With the ease of deployment (git push), you get the downside, which is your database, environment etc will not be directly configurable. I.E if you use Heroku, it's very difficult to get off it (transferring data etc).
By using a direct solution, such as RackSpace or AWS, you are in control of the environment, which means you get direct access to your database, dependent services & other aspects of the system. Of course, it comes with more maintenance, but you aren't locked into one system, as you are with Heroku
--
System
In terms of the system, Heroku locks you into using their domain infrastructure:
The domain example.herokuapp.com will always remain active, even if
you’ve set up a custom domain. If you want users to use the custom
domain exclusively, your app should send HTTP status 301 Moved
Permanently to tell web browsers to use the custom domain. The Host
HTTP request header field will show which domain the user is trying to
access; send a redirect if that field is example.herokuapp.com.
This is coupled with the lock-in of using the likes of different dependencies & other aspects of the Heroku system. It's basically a store-front for Amazon's AWS infrastructure
--
Recommendation
If you expect to have 5k users, I would highly recommend looking at
setting up your own environment, probably with RackSpace (as we
use them).
It's my opinion that Heroku is great for developers who just want to get an app up-and-running, but it's not very good with providing an environment you can control.
Some examples of this include your database - setting up on Rackspace etc means you get to define your database yourself. On Heroku, the db is kept in a third party datacenter, which you never see (try setting up PHPMyAdmin on Heroku)
Another example would be how you're going to scale the application. If you have memory leaks etc, you'll be far better positioned to have your own stack in place, rather than relying on someone else's. It allows you to define the specific details of how the app should operate - giving the ability to scale much easier
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am designing a system that will be running online under Microsoft Windows Azure. One component is a REST based web service which will really be a wrapper (using proxy pattern) which calls the REST web services of a business partner, which has to do with BLOB storage (note: we are not using azure storage). The majority of the functionality will be taking a request, calling our partner web service, receiving the request and then passing that back to the client.
There are a number of reasons for doing this, but one of the big ones is that we are going to support three clients: our desktop application (win and mac), mobile apps (iOS), and a web front end. Having a single API which we then send to our partner protects us if that partner ever changes.
I want our service to support both JSON and XML for the data transfer format, JSON for web and probably XML for the desktop and mobile (we already have an XML parser in those products). Our partner also supports both of these formats.
I was planning on using ASP.NET MVC 4 with the Web API. As I design this, the thing that concerns me is the static type checking of C#. What if the partner adds or removes elements from the data? We can probably defensively code for that, but I still feel some concern. Also, we have to do a fair amount of tedious coding, to setup our API and then to turn around and call our partner’s API. There probably is not much choice on it though. But, in the back of my mind I wonder if maybe a more dynamic language would be a better choice.
I want to reach out and see if anybody has had to do this before, what technology solutions they have used to (I am not attached to this one, these days Azure can host other technologies), and if anybody who has done something like this can point out any issues that came up. Thanks!
Researching the issue seems to only find solutions which focus on connecting a SOAP web service over a proxy server, and not what I am referring to here.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am starting to migrate a couple of applications to Azure. Seems very straightforward and all I have to do is add an addiitonal Azure project to my solution and point it at my web project.
However what concerns me is that the team starts contaminating my applications with Azure specific functionality and relying on it. For example File uploads would be to Azure storage, azure caching etc. All well and good if we stay Azure and all clients are happy to use Azure. If we find a client isn't happy with Azure I'd like not be into a lot of work removing Azure functionality.
Just wondering if anyone had experience similar issues. I guess ideally I'd like to be able to have the project right publish to Azure and it uses Azure features, Azure Code etc and a second publish that just allows me to use IIS with non Azure features.
I assume I just need to be careful use interfaces correctly and DI etc. FileUpload vs AzureFileUpload. What about issues like resources coming from Azure storage for CSS/scripts etc rather than local? Should I look at using Azure Cloud Drive to simulate just standard NTFS environment
Is there any advice/patterns/practices? Has anyone experiences with similar? How about separating projects up and project structure etc? I guess a lot of is it just standard design. Just wondering how other people were approaching avoiding lock in with Azure.
There's a couple things you can do if you're concerned:
Stick to the core technologies like asp.net, ado.net, sql which also exist outside of Azure.
Abstract away code which uses Azure specific services.
For the first one, simply scan your code to ensure the runtime services don't include Azure namespaces.
But, to be a cloud like service and get it's benefit, you should look into adopting azure services.
For the second, you can create a cloud services layer abstracted away by an interface. Only that layer communicates with azure specific services. If you need to work outside of azure, you just need a plug-in for that layer.
If you want the app to be able to run on IIS or Azure, and those are your only 2 targets, my only advice is don't overdo the abstracting / interfaces. There are some differences that can be handled in web.config and WebRole.OnStart(), such as using cache as a session provider or logging diagnostics to table storage.
Some things it will help to create interfaces for, and then inject those interfaces in the config depending on your deploy target (web config transform is what we use). For example in IIS you might want to send an email in a separate thread, whereas in Azure you might use a worker role and a queue. You can set up a web.config transform with 1 implementation of ISendEmails for IIS, and different one for Azure.
Another thing you could do, depending on how much file data you have, is store files as blob columns in the db. I'm sure someone will tell me this isn't good for performance, and can get expensive with GB of file data in sql sever, and they have a point. It may be worth considering though if having IIS/Azure flexibility is of high concern.
I would design a cloud interface (as an abstraction of an actual cloud/network) that your applications can use, together with an Azure implementation of that interface.
Then later, when needed, you can make other cloud implementations that your apps can use using the same interface.
When designing the interface, the challenge is to include only generic methods that are relevant on every kind of cloud/network. So this will prevent using any Azure specific features directly by your applications, but that is exactly the purpose.
I have an ASP.NET MVC web application that is hosted on a shared hosting account. The site has no issues during regular usage. However the nature of the business is such that for one week out of the month we have very very high traffic. During these high traffic peak load times, my application has several "Service Unavailable".
One of the possible solutions I am looking at is to spin up a Windows Azure web role during peak traffic week and spin it down again after the week is up. (I know exactly when the load is going to be high) Right now, we don't have enough revenue to justify moving the site permanently to the cloud.
My questions is how to I handle DNS. I would like the move to Azure and back to hosted service to be seamless to the user. The user should be able to type my normal URL and go to my hosted site during off peak weeks and to the cloud app during peak week. My guess is to add some kind of CNAME record to the DNS server but I have no idea how to go about doing this. Anybody know of any resources on how to update the DNS so this scenario would work?
Yup, a CNAME record sounds to me like the way to go. See http://blog.smarx.com/posts/custom-domain-names-in-windows-azure. (Sorry, one of the images looks broken... I'll try to patch that up.)
The scheme would be: have www.foo.com point to your current app instance, and then change it to point to something.cloudapp.net when that week comes up... then switch it back after the rush is over.
Is it possible to just have the MVC site hosted on another web hosting account permanently? It doesn't necessarily have to be an Azure account, does it? Is the site written in MVC1 or MVC2?
If your shared hosting server cannot handle the peak then 1 instance of the web worker role in Azure probably won't work either.
I would try something else: keep your asp.net code on that server but move all the static content somewhere else (for example the Azure CDN) using a subdomain. If you use Jquery and serve the file from your website then you can change the link to either Google's CDN or Microsoft's CDN already for free.
I have a winform application that controls some transmitters and sound cards. There is a requirement to be able to provide a web interface for controlling those devices.
Currently I use WCF to communicate from the controllers in my asp.net MVC site to the winform app. That works well, but there is now a desire to move the hardware to another machine when needed and that means that IIS has to be installed and set-up on that machine.
I know it isn't that hard, but I won't be the one actually doing the moving. It will be the users. If I could host the site from the winform app them it would basically be portable besides the hardware drivers need for a usb to serial converter we use.
Can you use a windows service? The whole winforms app as a service doesn't seem right to me. It assumes that the app is always running. I would create a windows service and expose WCF endpoints from that.
You will need to install IIS or Cassini to host the MVC web site. There's no way around that.
Huh, I would go with Greg's answers.
Also, making your app IIS dependant is not that bad. Or Cassini dependant. You don't want to end up writing your own webserver, which could easily happen when you continue to add features to the app.
I don't know about you but it just feels you are taking all the load on yourself, you are going to spend possibly dozens of hours to implement it to spare an hour or two for someone who doesn't want to install real webserver.
if you want to host MVC under winforms then i would look into the upcoming .netcore 3 version which should allow this combination.
though you'll have to wait until 2019 Q1
https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/roadmap.md
otherwise i've mostly hosted simper stuff using nhttp library if i want it in a winform app.
(NHTTP is a library that gives you very simple crude http request functionality so no mvc sadly but it works for simnpler stuff)