
YC W12 startups' hosting decisions - turtletim
http://syskall.com/yc-w12-startups-hosting-decisions/
======
arkitaip
Why do startups still use GoDaddy? Are they that strapped for cash?

~~~
MichaelApproved
If you're referring to their domains, GoDaddy's pricing is competitive with
the industry.

More than pricing, I thought using GoDaddy was frowned upon after the whole
SOPA fiasco. I'm surprised so many have decided to use them.

~~~
evolve2k
Especially considering YC's public stated strong position against SOPA
supporters and that they would not be welcome to demo days etc, this surprises
me that these values haven't flowed through to this round especially since the
round was not far from the whole SOPA debacle.

------
JoshTriplett
Sad to see so few startups using Gandi as a registrar.

Also sad to not see StartCom on the SSL list at all.

~~~
biot
There are a few big downsides to using Gandi as a registrar:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3405177>

In addition to the problems outlined in that post, you're additionally subject
to the laws of France and must pursue any relief in Paris [0]:

    
    
      You agree that You have been informed and expressly accept
      that if no amicable solution is found, in accordance with current
      French law, and unless there exists a clause to the contrary, any
      dispute concerning the validity, interpretation or execution of this
      Contract shall be referred exclusively to the competent jurisdiction
      in the region where Gandi is registered for the providing of the
      service  concerned,  and  therefore  at  location  of  Gandi  SAS
      (Paris).
    

I'm surprised more Y Combinator companies don't use EasyDNS:
[http://blog2.easydns.org/2008/07/08/5-questions-for-
ycombina...](http://blog2.easydns.org/2008/07/08/5-questions-for-ycombinators-
paul-graham/)

[0]
[http://www.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/g1/pdf/domain_name_...](http://www.gandi.net/static/contracts/en/g1/pdf/domain_name_conditions_2.3.pdf)

------
corry
Not to hijack this thread - but does anyone know of an Amazon-like 'cloud'
provider that's located in Canada? AFAIK, none of the providers listed here
have the option to store data in Canada.

Basically, I want to use S3 and EC2 for most things we do - but we sell to
MASH in Canada and they'll run for the hills if we're storing stuff in the US
(Patriot Act, etc).

(If anyone from Amazon is reading this - open a data center in Canada already!
:)

~~~
true_religion
I did a quick bit of checking and couldn't find anyone (like you).

My gut is telling me that few will open data centers in Canada when NJ/NY and
Washington State are right there across the border. Latency won't be a big
driver for that.

Would a EU/Australian data center do?

Ninefold has one for Aussies, and I bet if you looked there's competition
available in the EU.

Also, see if you can't get Amazon S3 to store only in their Ireland data
center.

~~~
corry
Sadly, I think another locale is off the table too. Would be better than the
US, but still "not in Canada". Thanks though - hopefully you're right and we
see some developments soon.

------
brk
What does this data tell us? (honest question).

Just based on random observations over the years, it seems that a lot of YC
startups don't really worry about the server infrastructure until they've
scaled quite a bit.

Is this is a list of what is most likely the cheapest options? The options
with the fastest setup? Lowest commitment?

It seems like a lot of _data_ , but very little _information_.

~~~
sushimako
> Is this is a list of what is most likely the cheapest options? The options
> with the fastest setup? Lowest commitment?

Comparing server-hosting options (dedicated, own hw+colo, vps, cloud) merely
by paid $$/month, dedicateds and owned hardware + colo-housing always wins (in
my experience). You can get a HP DL120G7 w/ good cpu and 16gb ram, incl
housing and a TB of traffic for ~ $300/month[0]. Last time i checked the
prices for an aequivalent offering on amazon (and others) was way beyond that
(excl traffic). A startup could easily boostrap with mentioned hardware. And
you're the only one on that hardware, you're pretty much guaranteed the power
that you're promised.

Now if you want more than one machine, you'd probably put some virtualization
on your server. For that, you need someone on your team who is able to and can
spend the time to setup some virtualization on your HN. And care about it.
(Can be lot of work or very little, depending on how much time/effort was
spent in the setup process). If you don't have that person on your team, you'd
have to pay someone to do it. This can push the costs significantly, maybe
beyond those of the virtual competition.

Another benefit of VPS/cloud is that you never have to care about the hardware
running your boxes. A harddrive dies? Not your problem, and you probably
wouldn't even notice. If you have your own hardware, you could protect against
downtimes due to hardware failure by having critical server-parts redundant,
e.g. hw/sw-raid, redundant power supply. If you put some service-contracts
with the hardware-vendor or the datacenter, you can have your failed hardware
hot-swapped by someone in a decent amount of time (depending on what sla
you're willing to pay for).

Fast setup is usually better on vps/cloud providers. Having fast setup times
with own hardware depends on you choice of datacenter/provider i'd guess. They
might have pre-setup/cabled machines ready to be activated within short call.
If you need some more power RIGHT NOW and you're running on dedicateds and for
some reason it takes 2 days to get the new hw, that i'd probably spin up a
cloud machine temporarily. Preferably a prepared image that's usually shutdown
and taken up for such a scenario.

please mind, that comparing those soultions to heroku is a different story.
Heroku offer way more service and take away most of the sysops headaches from
you. Of course that's a little more pricey, but again: for any server-instance
based solution (vps, cloud, dedicated) you need _someone_ setup your httpd and
a deployment of you app.

So back to you're question "What does this data tell us?". The hosting diagram
tells me personally, that choices were made based on not wanting to spending
time/money on sysops and/or more trust in cloud/vps solutions.

[0] [http://www.leaseweb.com/en/dedicated-servers/configurator-
cu...](http://www.leaseweb.com/en/dedicated-servers/configurator-custom-
built)?

------
magicarp
It would be interesting to see a greater breakdown of Amazon between straight-
up AWS, Heroku, AppFog, and other PaaS providers.

~~~
dotBen
how would/could you derive that?

~~~
benologist
DNS?

Edit : actually cloudflare hides a lot of stuff now, but when it doesn't you
can see Heroku and probably others:

[http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=api.pl...](http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=api.playtomic.com&type=A&submit=Resolve)

------
whichdan
I'm surprised more startups aren't using Rackspace, and that Moniker didn't
even make the list of registrars.

~~~
brk
I'm not. My personal experiences with Rackspace (servers and hosting) have
been pretty terrible. When things are working, it's OK, nothing monumental.
But when something goes wrong you get poor communications, excuses, and low
priority.

~~~
gingerlime
I agree. Just had a server image completely disappear with Rackspace. see
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4419387>. I'm using a mix of providers:
Rackspace, Linode, AWS and a few smaller ones like rimuhosting, webfaction
etc. So far Linode is by far the best option I've used. Perhaps not as
flexible and feature-rich as AWS, but Linode is easy to use, reliable and
really great support when you need it.

------
Kilimanjaro
Nobody using Google App Engine? Honest question.

------
ashrust
SendHub uses Heroku - it says RIPE on here.

