I won't name the company because of possible damage to the customer's relationship with the company.

As for uptime, in two months, there were two outages. That surprised me a lot.

There should be advantages in reliability (uptime) and scalability (many servers) and speed (geographic diversity). I can't say that I have seen any evidence in my minimal exposure that any of that actually happens.

I get very concerned any time a hosting company says they will give me, for example, 25% of a CPU. For easy arithmetic, let's say the server runs a 3.2 GHz CPU. One fourth of that is 800 MHz; would you buy an 800 MHz machine to run Drupal? Most current laptops are much faster than that, and my 7 year old desktop is faster still, and Drupal can be slow on it. The same is true of VPS's too.

There is a lot of promise in the cloud and the technology is maturing every day, but I think the hosting companies need to mature with it. With quad-cores, and larger, fueling the cloud there simply is no need to offer a fraction of a CPU.

Nancy

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -- Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.

From: Jorge Biquez

Do you see it is really an advantage , actually to use it? I sure think that maybe you could have a better uptime on the servers since are several behind, but you can have that if you have a cluster of them....

In reality , do you think is more expensive?

WITHOUT telling the name of the company you have not good experience. It is not a matter of damage their name.... what are the reasons that make you think they are not an option?