Is JaguarPC cutting corners to create low prices?

[kristoffo]

I think JaguarPC's business strategy depends fundamentally on ultra low prices and this must translate to chronic corner cutting.

This question has been split from another post or thread. This was done in order to address the topic more in depth, make it easier to find via forum searches, as well as prevent the other post/thread from going too far off-topic. Please continue this part of the conversation here. Thanks for understanding our tech Q&A policies.

[kpmedia]

Note: I split this from another thread, because I wanted to respond to it a bit more in depth. It's also been split into the web hosting forum, so others can learn from what I have to say on the topic.

Indeed, cutting corners appears to be part of the JaguarPC shared hosting business model, in terms of the server software -- at least by current standards in shared hosting. They're still operating open-source Apache as the webserver, instead of deploying a better combination of commercial licensed technology from CloudLinux, LiteSpeed, or 1H. They're several years behind the curve.

Most of the "unlimited" hosts avoid the commercial webservers and OS. Their price ratios are too small to afford quality software at $15/month per server. Some claim to have a super double secret in-house systems that balance everything (Godaddy, Dreamhost, Site5, etc), but independent comparison tests between those hosts often show it's still well behind the speed and stability of a CloudLinux/LiteSpeed setup.

Some shared hosts even choose to cut corners on hardware, using single-drive or RAID-1 SATA configurations (and with desktop-grade drives), instead of server-grade hard drives in SAS RAID-10 arrays. That's one reason I/O (read/write to the hard drive) tends to be miserable. And it filters into FTP speeds, http download speeds, and http/website loading speeds. Eleven2 actually bragged about using low-cost drive setups in a WHT post some months ago, and insisted it was "fine". But I like "excellent" quality servers, not "fine" ones. JaguarPC does not cut corners on the hardware.

Of course, that doesn't apply to you, since you're on a VPS, not shared/reseller hosting.

Based on support issues I've read in the past, JPC does use quality server-grade hardware (RAID-10 SAS server-grade drives) in their VPS plans, so you're going to be fine in that area. They've not cut any corners there. And while they do offer OpenVZ based virtual servers, you're on a Virtuozzo plan, and Virtuozzo is a really good commercial Linux virtualization platform (when not oversold). For the VPS offerings, I think JaguarPC is mostly low-cost (budget priced) based on economies of scale. They have a ton of servers and clients, and are able to bulk buy hardware, and negotiate pricing with commercial entities like Parallels and cPanel, in order to provide some of the things that they do.

Just my 2 cents.

_______

And in case there's any confusion, JaguarPC.com is a good host, and we suggest them:

Need a good web host? — Read our 2018 Review of the Best Web Hosts Quite often, problems with web sites are caused by having a rotten web host. Worse yet, many hosts try to blame you (the customer) for the problems! So dump that lousy company. Say goodbye to slow sites, unresponsive support techs, and downtime. Find yourself a new host today. Whether you need shared, reseller, VPS, semi-dedicated, cloud, or dedicated hosting, something on our list should be a good upgrade for you.

[kristoffo]

It's good to know that I have a good host. I hope to remember to consult your list when I am ready for expansion. A few suggestions for your next Top Hosts List.

1. Instead of each host name clicking directly to the host, maybe put after the name: (reviews). Then make "Hostname (reviews)" click to a separate thread, which prominently contains your commission link, and also briefly explains for example:

• Why do you rate EuroVPS #1 even though others cost half as much?
• Why is Knownhost below Futurehost, even though Knownhost is 1/3 the cost and is perhaps the most consistently well-recommended VPS host on forums?
• Also of course the particular "pros & cons" of each host.
• Active link back to the "Best VPS Hosts List": "Rated #3 on our Best VPS Hosts List 2012." (In my opinion the words "best" and "VPS" should be in the active link text.)

This will make things clearer and also will attract search engines with titles like "Knownhost Reviews" and the corresponding active link from your main chart.

2. For clarity to novices, I suggest you make the column headings two lines and different font sizes if necessessary to use less abbreviation, eg:
Semi-
Dedicated

3. In the "semi-dedicated" and "fully-dedicated" columns, instead of a check mark, maybe list the current lowest price for that option. Also for the semi-dedicated option, maybe a footnote with two asterisks (**) for those that are significantly better than any shared VPS of equivalent size. This footnote can also explain that the other "semi dedicated" offers might not be worth the bother.

4. Perhaps a note about control panels. I suspect that perhaps you agree with me that Plesk and DirectAdmin are not worth the bother. I tried DirectAdmin hoping for significantly better efficiency, which seemed not the case. Cpanel is usually available at little or no cost, support staff are more familiar with Cpanel, CMS tutorials have more detailed instructions for Cpanel, and Cpanel has substantial out-of-box security settings. Otherwise they are pretty much the same.

[kpmedia]

The post that you're referring to was actually never planned. It was an impromptu list that I made almost two years ago, because I was tired of everybody asking my opinion on which host was best, over and over again, several times per week! Earlier this year, I began working on a more organized and feature-rich section of this site, which does address most of your suggestions on content.

Listing prices became too tedious, because it changes too often. One of the changes made was to break down hosts by categories of "premium", "standard", and "budget", to help those who want to shop by price.

And then the reviews format is quite nice. It will help to redefine what a hosting review should be.

Regarding panels, I'd actually have a hard time snubbing Plesk or DirectAdmin. They all have their best uses. cPanel is a favorite for sure, but it has its own set of weaknesses. Two of my favorite panels are actually free: ISPConfig 3 and Virtualmin GPL. But those also have their ideal uses, and various upsides/downsides. It's not an easy aye/nay scenario, with one being best ever, and the others being dog poo. (That is the case with Windows, however. Plesk is best, everything else sucks.)

As always, I appreciate and value your input. Thanks.