Cloud Hosting + CDN worth it?
-
Hi,
Never used cloud hosting before. Found a service for $60-70 a month, just want to give it a try on a new website.
They also have an additional CDN feature for additional $40 a month. It promises great results as well as google's love.
Does cloud hosting+cdn worth it's money?
Website will have around 500 visitors a day, but all will be ppc, so there is no need for a server. but reliability is a great issue
Thanks, Serge
-
60-70$ a month is way too much. Today you can get free Cloud CDN + Proxy acceleration from a number of providers.
-
With 500 visitors - forget CDNs.
unshit.com is your best friend.
-
Careful adding embedded video. Your site won't get the link juice of that video URL if it's linked to Youtube, Vimeo, or other video hosting site unless you can customize the domain (most likely subdomain) to the site you are hosting it on. Remember, Youtube is a search engine!
CDNs like AWS have edge servers in many countries (Cloudfront) and allow for custom domains. Video hosting sites aren't necessarily fast; your video needs to create a certain amount of traffic to stay in the cache. Stale video is likely to get pulled from a storage system and then loaded into cache, which is the way most CDNs work.
Anyway, try a service called loadimpact.com and test your sites performance. Make sure to sign up and configure the test to use Simulated Browser Users (SBUs).
-
Site 5 is great. I do reseller hosting though them. I was just chatting with Dawn today actually. She always saves my ass.
If you are experiencing lags in loading, a CDN will help.
But if you are using something like Youtube and embedding your video (which you really want to cause their servers are faster and geared for video), you don't need a CDN. -
I understand your concern for speed.
For you, caching would suffice. Serving up cached html files on a shared server is quite fast. So i really don't think you need cloud hosting.CDNs really help when you have a lot of images. What it does is split the server load from one server to two, and you split the number of http requests over a couple servers speeding things along. I would really only consider it if you have lots of photos.
-
I'd be interested in this also. My site has a lot of images (but even worse, a lot of videos). I'm trying to speed up my site, and I was also looking at the CDN. I have been using Site5 shared hosting and I have been very happy with it. (I get a lot more traffic that 500 a day, and it works great.) They also have a VPS that is priced very fair, but to be honest the shared hosting has been incredible. Not to mention their customer service has been outstanding.
I am interested to hear peoples opinion on CDN's though.
-
Thanks William for a response,
yes, site is on wordpress and w3 cache is already installed. I have it on all wordpress sites.
godady, 1and1, bluehost etc.. had problems with all of them.
The thing is that site speed is very important for us. Site will have 30% of traffic through mobile phones. Also, the site will be in a very competitive niche with high cpc. As you know, site speed also influence your Quality Score.
I should have asked a little different. obviously there is no need for a server. what combination would be the best for this money range? Will there be an advantage in using CDN as a plus to Cloud hosting?
-
For 500 visitors a day, I think Cloud and CDN are a bit overkill. Most cheap shared servers have a 99% uptime.
I think it really depends on how critical you have 100% uptime. (and even then most say 99.99%).
CDN would be beneficial if you have lots of images and you are international.
There are cheaper solutions for CDN as well. Amazon Web Services is based only on what you use.
There's a plugin in WordPress called W3 Total Cache which caches your whole site (rendering it pretty under heavy traffic), plus it will tie into AWS. The plugin is free, and then you're only using what you are using from Amazon.
Again, I just think it depends on how big you are, and 500 unique visitors isn't really a lot to handle for most hosting accounts.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can we validate a CDN like Max in Webmasters?
Hi, Can we validate a CDN like Max in Webmasters? We have images hosted in CDN and they dont get indexed in Google images. Its been a year now and no luck. Maxcdn says they have no issues at there end and images have ALT and they are original images with no copyright issues
Technical SEO | | ArchieChilds0 -
Does an subdomain hosted offsite provide SEO value
We have a job board hosted through an applicant processing system which we've setup as a subdomain (jobs.ourcompany.com), most of the assets are hosted on our primary domain (ourcompany.com). My question is does having it hosted offsite provide any value? Do we get credit for that content being shared and distributed on the web or does the applicant processing system? As I see it the options are (correct me if I'm wrong): Host the job listings on our primary domain (ourcompany.com/jobs) and have it point to the application on the subdomain. Advertise the job listings pointing to the primary domain on the paid sites. The free job listing sites will automatically point to the sub-domain because the applicant processing system automatically submits them. Host the job listings entirely on the sub-domain applicant tracking system and link to it from our primary site navigation. Advertise the job listings to the sub-domain so that both free and paid point to the same place. Obviously the second one would be much easier just not sure on the technical side of our website getting credit by search engines as the one who has produced the content.
Technical SEO | | r1200gsa0 -
Go Daddy Ultimate Hosting?
I host several websites for my clients in my Go Daddy account. I've currently got each site on it's own hosting plan (about $5-$9 per month per site) but I was recently on the phone with Go Daddy and they suggested migrating everything to an Ultimate hosting plan, which allows me to host an unlimited number of websites, sql databases, etc for a set price. Will this negatively effect my SEO as all of my sites will essentially be tied together? I can save a few hundred dollars per year, but it's definitely not worth it if all of my clients' sites tank.
Technical SEO | | socialfirestarter0 -
Is it better to have hosting that specializes in performance or have the host closer to you physically?
I am looking to change to a new hosting company. I am debating between taking a company that specializes in Wordpress and performance but is situated far from my users or a local company that might not be as good from a performance/speed point of view. Which do you think I should go with? My users are near Europe and the Wordpress hosting that I am considering is in the US.
Technical SEO | | JillB20130 -
Authorship Markup worth it for "invisible" authors
Greetings everyone! Background I help run multiple continuing education sites for Allied Health professionals. Our editors do a great job of getting some of the best authors in their respective fields to come onto the site and present webinars and we publish articles around those presentations. I would love to be able to use the rel=author tag on these sites as the authors we use help to improve our credibility when a user is on the site and I would like to take advantage of this in the SERPs. The issue is that while most of these authors are leaders in their respective fields and have published in many academic publications, they are not on Facebook or Twitter, let alone Google+. Also, they are probably not interested in setting up a G+ profile. They are "famous" and well published within their fields, yet they are somewhat "invisible" on the web. We are looking to implement author bios on our site and then could use the rel=author tag internally so that seems like a good first step. The question is then around linking out with rel=me to any profiles (FB, Twitter, G+) The issue is that, as I mentioned above, the online profiles are pretty scarce. Question / Discussion Is it worth it to setup all the authorship markup to internal bios on a site when many of the authors are "invisible" on G+, twitter, FB, etc. and so I will be limited in how I can link rel=me to those profiles. If the Google+ profile is not available for an author, what do you prefer to link to. Would you say FB over Twitter as FB has more users, or if a user has both profiles, but uses twitter more often, would you link to the Twitter profile instead? Many of these authors work at the university and have a bio page on the university website, would it be working linking to that profile? How do you judge the "best" place to link to if there is no Google+ profile. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | CleverPhD0 -
Can you do a 301 redirect without a hosting account?
Trying to retire domain1 and 301 it to domain2 - just don't want to get stuck having to pay the old hosting provider simply to serve a .htaccess file with the redirect rule.
Technical SEO | | TitanDigital0 -
Rackspace UK Cloud IP - Traceroute
Hello, I recently moved to rackspace and before i signed made sure with them that i would get a UK based IP. It is a Cloud hosting solution. I have checked with whois and a few other sites and the IP is being shown as US, they asked me to do a traceroute and it shows up in the UK: http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=trace&host=164.177.146.74 can anyone confirm if this is UK based and ok from an seo point of view as we are targeting a UK audience. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you Shehzad
Technical SEO | | shehzad0 -
Worth Changing Redirect From 302 to 301?
Hi, I'm doing an audit on a site that had a redesign in Dec 2009. For some reason I looked to see what kind of redirects were used from the old pages to the current ones, and it looks like they used 302s, which obviously isn't ideal. Given that it's been so long and those pages have looong since been de-indexed, is it worth me suggesting that they change those old redirects to 301s? My thinking is that if those old pages were linked to externally then I should recommend it, but I can't find any link info on Linkscape/OSE, Majestic SEO or YSE. Any comments appreciated.
Technical SEO | | The_Heavies0