I would like to hear more about those great features Yahoo does offer? 
I think the best option for a developer would be to go with a dedicated server or a VPS
If you are serious developer, then you surely need a dedicated server because it’s the only choice. Personally I prefer developing all scripts on localhost and moving them to dedicated server for further tests.
There’s a number of reasons why for -development- a VPS can be a better choice than a dedicated server, and there are also reasons why for deployment a VPS can often be better too:
- a virtualised server can quickly be reconfigured with a new distro, or re-imaged.
- resize and reallocate resource allocations on the fly to emulate deployment strategy /load testing e.g memory/cpu allocation.
- quickly clone/transfer a complete VPS between datacentres (if you use a provider that supports this such as linode)
- cost to performance ratio (how many dedicated servers use only a fraction of available resources - with a VPS I can up and downsize as required and allocate a cost effective amount of resources)
- controllable by api for clustered/auto scaling scenarios
There are reasons why with certain applications you wouldn’t use a virtualised solution (heavily disk bound applications, requirement for high utilisation of the servers total network port bandwidth, absolute isolation and guaranteed maximum performance) but for most typical scenarios the benefits of cost and flexibility outweigh the negatives.
EastCoast, I agree with some points you have written here, but all friends of mine (who build applications) use dedicated servers. They are not very expensive. If you don’t need control panel and other stuff, it’s possible to find deals for about $50 a month.
The problem with dedicated servers at that price point is that they will likely be using extremely low quality components, and hence have performance and reliability compromises.
I’d rather have a slice of an enterprise class 8-core server running raid 10 SAS enterprise drives, on a decent network with redundant everything, than some nickel n dime domestic quality box. If you consider typical colocation costs for rackspace and ampage in a datacentre, there’s simple no way you get anything less than serious compromises for $50 a month for a dedicated e.g no raid, limited port, domestic sata drives)
I’d be interested to know your logic in why that’s a preferrable hosting scenario for a professional developer or their customers.
Roth,
Create a test server on YOUR computer then you’ll be able to upload to just about any server you find that suits your needs. If you need help with that, see Kevin Yank’s book (setting up an Apache server with PHP on just about any OS is in the FREE Chapter 1).
Regards,
DK
I wouldn’t underestimate cluster hosts either, if you need something stronger than shared hosting but don’t want to shell out the cash for a VPS or dedicated (because let’s face it, not everyone has the cash) you can get some pretty decent cluster / grid hosting solutions which bridge the gap (or there’s always cloud hosting if you want a needs-based host). I’m hosted with mediaTemple and apart from some silliness from their end, it’s been much better than shared hosting (IMO).
That’s correct, hardware quality won’t be 5star, but nobody talks about using this type of servers for live sites. This type of servers could be used for development ONLY.
I had a few servers priced at $50-70 and they were very good for development tasks. No reliability or performance issues. In other hand, I try developing all scripts on localhost now, and moving them for final tests to the server where live version will be located,