Support » Plugin: InfiniteWP Client » Not usable on most popular shared server hosts

  • Sounds like it might be a great tool, but the requirements exceed what competent shared service hosts can provide and allow customers to make use of.

    Things like requiring alterable PHP max execution time puts it out of reach of the majority of WordPress users.

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Your definition of “competent shared service hosts” might not be very wide spread. In my opinion, a host where I can not alter certain settings like the maximum execution time of php-scripts is either far from competent or just offering zero configurable hosting for people who do not want to spent any money on it and so lowering his costs for support.

    You should rethink your opinion.

    H =)

    Actually, note that I dealt only with shared service hosts — allowing you to alter settings that allow you to consume more resources for yourself and reduce the services I’m paying for, and/or introduce security risks that jeopardize my site doesn’t make me want to use that service or recommend it to others.

    I repeat, their unwillingness to make their software run on shared hosting services I can recommend to my clients makes it unusable for me — and I have been told by others they share the same problem. If you can afford and are willing to self-manage your own dedicated servers, more power to you — but leave me off your system. There are other solutions out there.

    dear jack96161,

    if a script needs more time to run because the task it has to handle takes longer than what is configured in your hosting providers max execution time, then your needs have outgrown your hosting providers configuration (PHP/HTTPd and/or hardware).

    Either your hosting provider is willing to let you configure and use what your site needs (or to configure it for you) or you have to move your site to another provider.

    Also (coding wise), it is not necessarily always possible and/or affordable to split tasks into small subtasks to make everything run at (low-end) shared hosting providers. This would be introducing a lot of overhead and make development a lot more time consuming, complex and expensive.

    On top of that is the hardware (or virtualization) configuration of your hosting service provider directly affecting the execution time of scripts.

    For example you will get a lot more operations within 30 seconds on a 3.5GHz CPU than within 60 seconds on a 1.2GHz CPU.

    Maximum execution time and consuming more resources (memory, processing time, whatever) is only jeopardizing your site if what you are having at hand is not sufficient for handling your sites needs.

    Raising maximum execution time or consuming more resources doesn’t mean to introduce any security risk by itself. I do not understand your concerns here.

    (Shared) hosting providers who are able to handle higher load (more simultaneous scripts and/or more execution time) are neither less competent nor less secure than your (so called) “competent shared hosts”.

    For me it sounds like you are maybe not doing (yourself and) your clients a favour if you are only recommending (low-end?) shared hosters. It’s like recommending everyone who needs a car to buy a Piaggio Ape. As you can surely imagine, not everyone will get satified with a Piaggio Ape. Different problems will result in different solutions.

    What I want to tell you is, that your point of view is maybe a little ‘limited’? No Offense!

    I hope I’ve been able to make my point clear now.

    H =)

    I do understand all of what you are describing here (50+ yrs in the computer profession and 46 yrs experience with the Internet, starting as a staff member in Stanford Research Institute working on the ARPAnet project, cica 1967).

    However, it is not just “low-end” hosting services that that restrict these questionable practices. I make use of very reliable, competent services and pay the price for that service. My favorite service provider, who I have had impeccable service from for 8 years or more, disallows some of these shared user “freedoms” for the very reason you acknowledge — open ended security risks. I’ll stick with their experience and history.

    The WilderNet has become a dangerous enough place to work and play without exposing my clients to additional risks — this package is not worth it until I have cause to move to dedicated servers.

    Dear jack96161,

    with your background you should know better. Raising memory or execution time has (of course) the potential to make security problems bigger, but it is most likely not the cause of the security problems.

    If you have any experience with the LAMP-stack and hosting WordPress with it’s inexhaustible amount of themes and plugins you will know what I am talking about.

    This tool might be unusable for you, but I strongly doubt that you are the intended clientele for this tool since system/web administrators who are managing a large amount of WordPress installations are usually not found as customers at (sorry) “low-end” shared hosting service providers.

    Sincerely,

    H =)

    You’re right about one thing — I’m not the intended clientele for a tool that cannot be used with a widely used class of shared server hosting companies. However, to call then “low-end” because they don’t care to expose their customers to potential abuse by other customers sharing the same server is unfair. I don’t deal with the widely popular $5-$10/mo services that provide very uneven service on rarely monitored, frequently unbalanced shared servers. Incidentally, I prefer the more accurate term “el-cheapo” to “low-end”. As you probably know, some of them do allow the kind of encroaching user access this application requires, but that doesn’t make me want to use or recommend them.

    Truth is, I’m (mostly) retired, and the few dozen sites I maintain do not require a tool like this, but it looked interesting and it’s limitations were both not described in the introductory information and did not become apparent until after I had downloaded and installed it. I reported this to the developers and since I haven’t checked their site since then, they may have corrected this by now.

    Given the very large and complex server level software I am able to install and make good use of on the shared server hosts I make use of, I find it hard to believe that this application could not be developed to function efficiently in these environments. I maintain some quite high volume sites, including several large eCommerce operations and do beta testing for a number of emerging SAAS applications. I’ve encountered a number of cases where I had to upgrade to a higher level of service because of high volume requirements, but this is the first time I’ve run into these somewhat petty requirements.

    A bit of up-front honesty on the part of the developers to explain these limitations and simply recommend that this is not a tool for the users of shared server technology would have saved all of us some trouble as well as this far too extended dialog. Let’s turn off the email follow-up post option for this thread and leave it at that…

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • The topic ‘Not usable on most popular shared server hosts’ is closed to new replies.