This may seem off topic but its on topic, technical SEO is imperative … you’re not going to rank number one on Google using Shopify or Wix. It just isnt going to happen.
Its also apparently difficult to get solid advice on SEO Hosting from “experts” Best Blog Hosting for SEO is junk … reciting features doesnt make a hosting plan the best…one quote notes that WordPress is already installed with InMotionHosting.com … so what! Our web servers are preconfigured to install WordPress in every new account as well…it only saves maybe 5 minutes per user but for a web host that time adds up very quickly. But you arent a web host so it’s not that big of a deal. I’d like to hear about benchmarking tests they may have run to decide who is the best.
Features Aren’t Technical Specs
Unlimited bandwidth…sounds great but what are the limits? There are limits and these are beyond the hosts control sometimes but for instance …. if someone uses a CAT5 cable instead of a CAT6 everything will be more speed limited and especially if a bottle neck is designed in to infrastructure. Unlimited bandwidth means nothing to me because there are limits … physical limits exist and can’t be avoided.And WordPress preinstalled saves someone 5 minutes but nothing else. These aren’t important to the Hosting platform.
Cloud Computing: Be Your Own Host
The industry standard in web hosting is cPanel. No way around it with cPanel your support opinions are bountiful where as dreamhost.com has its own proprietary server software … its no better in actuality its just far less supported by third parties. Ultimate SEO is hosted on a variety of cPanel servers that were eay to build and deploy, I made them from scratch and with templates but all in all there are 4 AWS servers, 2 Google Cloud Platfrom and 4 Digital Ocean currently powering hundreds of sites including this site. Cost varies wildly…
Its important to note that your web host is honestly likely run on one of these three services. Youre sharing their share of the cloud environment. Why not just skip ahead and be the master of your domain….sure it will cost more than $3 a month … but that $3 a month hosting plan is shit.
A good review between AWS and a traditional hosting provider is AWS vs Blue Host
Amazon Web Services
I don’t even know what I am spending, where and how it is being spent. AWS charges you for everything little thing and no matter what steps you might take it may seem like rising project costs are simply unavoidable. There platform to work within is NOT intuitive and it will require some play time to remember that you have to leave the virtual server’s configuration area to select an IP address ( that will cost you money…each ip address, not talking about bandwidth I’m just saying the number ) and then return to that original area to associate it. Dont even think about swapping hard drives and knowing what is attached t what unless you are prepared to write down long strings of numbers and letters.
AWS does provide greater flexibility than the others on options beyond just a virtual server…but unless you plan to send 100,oo0 emails a day to people you wont benefit from their email service … as an example. Technical SEO wise I’d give AWS a D overall. Infrastructure and computing power is an obivous A+ but its how you interact with that that weighs the grade.
Poor navigation and the nickle and dime pricing is absurd. Want to monitor your usage so you can understand your bill? Monitoring costs more…its ridiculous.
They do offer reserved instances and I loaded up on those but still my costs never decreased. AWS is so hard to understand billing wise that IT Managed Service Providers will offer free excel templates to figure out your AWS monthly costs. Think I’m being over the top? Check out this calculator form sheet by AWS to forecast your expenses.
Heres something crazy…why my April bill was 167 but AWS forcasts it will be $1020 in May I have no idea. I’m not adding servers…
Google Cloud Platform
Is easier to use and wrap your head around but it is considerably more expensive than either of the other options. For this simple reason…they receive an F. The additional costs come with less options and less features than AWS. Billing is more transparent and you can understand why your bill is what it is at least. But Google also makes unilateral decisions for you like blocking smtp and ssh access. Sure its more secure but it makes email and server maintenance a nightmare. Documents like this Connecting to Instances make it seem like not a big deal, but these wont allow you to move a file from your computer to the server like SFTP would.
They are expensive, offer less and needlessly shot you in the foot with their restrictions. Thats why I stand by the F as an overall grade. Now infrastructure capabilities … A+ no doubt about it.
I received no compensation or thank you from anyone for writing this … Digital Ocean is my B+ graded cloud solution. Its the cheapest, and they don’t seem to charge you a fee for tools that are required for the main product to function, unlike AWS and their static ip addresses. They have the least ability and options outside of a virtual server. If you want a database server thats in the works unless you can use Postgres. Thats limiting, but it is also not important if you’re just running a few web servers that will already have MySQL installed on them anyhow.
Digital Ocean is the no frills, no surprises, cloud computing option. The reason I have so many servers is because I am migrating everything off AWS and Google Cloud to Digital Ocean…it’ll be cheaper. A lot cheaper…
Thats right… $20 vs $121, $177 and $120 from AWS, GCP and Azure. I didn’t really consider Microsoft Azure just because I have reservations moving into their sphere or control where every thing you need to do is addressed by yet another Microsoft product that usually has little imagination in it.
Test out a server in each environment and I think you’ll quickly take to the Digital Ocean option.