I have a Canadian client, presently living in England, who is setting up a
vary basic web site. The business is located in the UK, it makes sense to
have the web hosting service in the UK as well.
Would anyone who is happy with a UK hosting service offering PHP
(preferably 5) and MySQL please make a suggestion. (I'm willing to accept
one or two outages a years, more importantly, if there is a problem with
email, etc., are they responsive?)
Regards - Miles Thompson
(902) 440-2010
"Ask the fruitful question."

Miles Thompson wrote:

I have a Canadian client, presently living in England, who is setting up
a vary basic web site. The business is located in the UK, it makes
sense to have the web hosting service in the UK as well.

Why? If they're not hosting it in-house, why does it matter where on
the globe it is?

Would anyone who is happy with a UK hosting service offering PHP
(preferably 5) and MySQL please make a suggestion. (I'm willing to
accept one or two outages a years, more importantly, if there is a
problem with email, etc., are they responsive?)

I can understand wanting the hosting service being on the same 'working'
hours as the client, but many hosts have 24 hour support. I don't
recommend places often, but if your client can accept a host outside of
the UK, look at http://www.jtlnet.com I used them for years, and
outside of great prices, their service is top notch.

Note: I am not associated with JTL in any way, shape or form these days.

Tue, 2006-09-05 at 10:41 -0400, John Nichel wrote:
Miles Thompson wrote:

I have a Canadian client, presently living in England, who is setting up
a vary basic web site. The business is located in the UK, it makes
sense to have the web hosting service in the UK as well.

Why? If they're not hosting it in-house, why does it matter where on
the globe it is?

Request latency due to distance and intermediate hops. The shorter the
distance and fewer hops the faster those little images, stylesheets, and
various other embedded media will load. This won't be very noticeable on
the first page load due to the download times, but other requests that
check timestamps against cache will appear more sluggish than necessary.

Cheers,
Rob.

Miles Thompson wrote:

I have a Canadian client, presently living in England, who is setting up
a vary basic web site. The business is located in the UK, it makes
sense to have the web hosting service in the UK as well.

Would anyone who is happy with a UK hosting service offering PHP
(preferably 5) and MySQL please make a suggestion. (I'm willing to
accept one or two outages a years, more importantly, if there is a
problem with email, etc., are they responsive?)

Regards - Miles Thompson
(902) 440-2010
"Ask the fruitful question."

Miles,

I use:

AJ

Rory Browne wrote:
>>
>Why? If they're not hosting it in-house, why does it matter where on
>the globe it is?
>>
>Request latency due to distance and intermediate hops. The shorter the
>distance and fewer hops the faster those little images, stylesheets, and
>various other embedded media will load. This won't be very noticeable on
>the first page load due to the download times, but other requests that
>check timestamps against cache will appear more sluggish than necessary.

It's also more fault tolerent. I don't imagine this ever happening, but if
the UK was somehow cut off from all other countries internet system, then
the UK customers would still be able to access sites in the UK, but not
sites outside of the UK. It's one less thing that can go wrong.

Seems to me to be too much worrying about a, "vary basic web site". The
P is willing to accept one or two outages a year, ya know?

At 10:41 AM -0400 9/5/06, John Nichel wrote:
don't recommend places often, but if your client can accept a host
>outside of the UK, look at http://www.jtlnet.com

Strange web site -- for Safari it pulses (i.e., get's larger and
returns to normal size) about every three seconds.

tedd

>I use:
>
>
>
>AJ
Interesting that they display compliance, but fail validation (89 errors?).
tedd

tedd wrote:
>I use:
>>
>
>>
>AJ

Interesting that they display compliance, but fail validation (89 errors?).

tedd
May I quickly say that I have no involvement in this company other than
having sites hosted with them! (blush)

I will raise it with them!

Thanks for pointing that out.

AJ

tedd wrote:
>I use:
>>
>
>>
>AJ

Interesting that they display compliance, but fail validation (89 errors?).

tedd

Are - the answer is that they recently updated all the pages, and the
buttons for validation should only be on the front page.

AJ

At 6:20 PM +0100 9/5/06, Alex Turner wrote:
>tedd wrote:
I use:

AJ
>>
>>Interesting that they display compliance, but fail validation (89 errors?).
>>
>>tedd
>
>Are - the answer is that they recently updated all the pages, and
>the buttons for validation should only be on the front page.
>
>AJ

Ahhh, that's better -- and explains it.

tedd