I am a .Internet developer for pay, however i have my own site located on the Light stack having a hosting that is shared provider. I have been searching for some time to switching to some Home windows with .Internet host company, but what really turns me off may be the cost. Why I wish to switch is the fact that I've found .Internet a lot more enjoyable to build up on, and I am a lot more used with using .Internet instead of PHP.
With my current Linux host company, for any measly $10 per month, I recieve more bandwidth and disk space than I possibly could ever desire to use on the personal site. I am presently allotted 380 GB of space, and 7700 GB of transfer. As I understand that I possibly could never possibly reach individuals limits, particularly with the CPU usage limits set up, it's nice to become going to have a lot of pictures on my website without worrying about drained of space.
However, using the choices I see in the Home windows hosts, for example, for $17 per month, I'd only get 2 GB of disk space and 200 GB of transfer. The transfer limits appear within things i would use within per month, however the 2 GB of disk space appears very low. Especially since only 400 Megabytes might be employed for SQL Server databases.
So enough background, onto the question, may be the difference in prices tied exclusively towards the costs having to pay for licenses for Home windows and SQL Server, or perhaps is there another thing that I am not thinking about entering the price of the Home windows hosting plan. I recieve great service with my Linux host, and so i don't believe it is a problem of quality people who run the different hosting sites. Does the price of the program certification really make that a difference?
When the prices is because of certification costs, why not see more host with Home windows and .Internet, however with alternative databases for example PostgreSQL or MySQL open to keep your prices low, which supplying essentially exactly the same functionality.
I believe it has related to 2 major issues:
1) Certification, it is really an apparent one, the host charges you you more cause he needs to purchase home windows and SQLServer.
2) Hardware, running home windows requires greater assets there for less virtual hosts, and vps could be run on a single quantity of hardware like a linux server.
Because Home windows Server and SQL Server licenses cost you a lot of cash, per CPU Core (and not simply per machine), and thus your host company must recuperate costs for that license.
This really is on the top from the usual operating overhead (the only factor Linux servers cover).
I additionally feel your discomfort, because I conserve a site for my wife's business, even though I am dirty together with her front-end customer facing application being designed in ASP.Internet, I must stay with Light hosting first, which suffices right now.
Besides the price of licences, consider the sysadmins. You most likely need less sysadmins to keep a lot of linux servers than you need to do for home windows. That price is passed onto you.
The Mosso Cloud Sites product can switch between Light and .Internet without altering the cost. Switching from MySQL to MS SQL is $5/month cost difference but .Internet can clearly use MySQL if cost is really a concern. I mention the product since your needs (disk space and bandwidth) don't vary in line with the technology.
Disclaimer: I am a Rackspace worker and Mosso is really a Rackspace company.
This is most most likely appropriate for Web service provider suppliers rather than developers. This could easily break out the typical holy wars over Microsoft versus OSS. My very own observation parallels with yours. ISPs prefer Light over Home windows.
I've labored with both stacks and, IMHO, and searching in the large picture, it seems in my experience that Microsoft technology and certification was created to focus on the Intranet development market. So, the TCO does not look so favorable for Internet programs.
I am not to imply that you simply can't write a very great Internet application while using .Internet application stack. Obviously you can. It is simply that Light is much better situated, from the TCO perspective, for the sorts of workload that ISPs encounter.
This isn't a critique of Microsoft. They've shareholders' interests to safeguard. The income for so-known as enterprise development are greater than the kind of clients that ISPs best serve.