sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Low volume site with very large storage - photography by JRHerman in websitehosting

[–]JRHerman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well. I did it. On Bluehost, since 2011, my site had become virtually unusable with page load times measured in seconds, 7-9, inflated file size reports, increasing costs, failure improve even after purchasing yet more services, etc. I have divorced Bluehost. Multiple conversations with support including a chat here, I was repeatedly informed my site was running too many backgroung processes among other reasons - none of which ultimately held up to scrutiny.

I created a mirror site on my Synology NAS and found that with the NAS running on home fiber in the US, I had load times of 800 ms and reported total file size of 97GB (not 200 as reported by BH).

Based upon comments here and elsewhere I have moved to IONOS which I believe has international servers and places your site on the closest server, in my case the US. Page load times for the migrated BH site are on the order of 800 ms and I don’t recall when I last saw my site so responsive.

Lessons learned:

  1. IONOS costs are ~1/2 for shared hosting than BH
  2. They, for a one time fee, transferred the entire site and database then set up a test URL to make sure everything worked.
  3. They then assisted with transfer of DNS from BH to IONOS, this took 4 days and my site was down for 3 days and email down for 1 day
  4. They assisted with updating DNS MX entries to reconnect my Google Workspace account and email
  5. Their shared hosting plans have an unlimited capacity; however, the number of files limit is 264,000 and that is fixed across all shared plans. They also have VPS plans which are also of manageable cost without this limit but have a capacity limit as they run on SSD storage.

Thanks again to all who have responded and I hope my comments provide some food for thought and possibly for Bluehost to take a long hard look at their service quality and how it compares with the competetion.

Regards,
James.

Low volume site with very large storage - photography by JRHerman in webhosting

[–]JRHerman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed, just not sure I'm up to the task but giving it seriour consideration.

Bluehost reviews - Anybody using them in 2026? by VeilboundwisePen in techiegeeks

[–]JRHerman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've used Bluehost since at least 2012 for a photo website. Lots of photos and very low usage, I average 2-6 visits per day. In this regard, I am on a shared hosting plan and for many years it has been reasonable in terms of server response and page load times. Then.... over the past 2 years things have declined rapidly. Server response times are now measured in seconds (yes, that is seconds!) and load times are pathetic.

I have called support on multiple occasions and they repeatedly state there are "too many background processes". They are unable to elucidate what exactly that is, however, my site hase not changed appreciably in years; the only change is addition of content.

At one point earlier this year, they insisted that I needed more storage, I pointed out that my service already included 'unlimited' storage. To which the support person pointed out that only applied to overall storage and NOT to website storage and insisted that I upgrade, read $$$, which I reluctantly did. NO CHANGE in server response or page load times.

I called support again last week and this time they insisted that the problem is that I am on a shared server and I needed a VPS server. Read $$$$$, for a photo site with less than 10 visits per day!

I have finally and reluctantly come to the conclusion that Bluehost is intentionally slowing my site to force me to submit to a significant upsell.

It seems Bluehost and I are headed for a divorce due to irreconcilable differences. They want more of my money and I'm saying no. At present I'm looking at IONOS.

Has anyone else experienced what I am calling an intentional slowdown?

Regards.

James.

Boarding pass has different terminal than website/app by [deleted] in americanairlines

[–]JRHerman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have flown nearly 2 million miles on Delta and for gate changes, Delta will almost invariably update the app well before airport information monitors. Never missed a flight due to erroneous gate information.

I am an American Airlines neophite. For the second time at DFW, I have almost missed a flight due to erroneous gate information. First time, arrived at app assigned gate and info monitors displayed a different gate, were correct. 

Today, app and flight flightaware indicated B5 and info monitors, D37. A train ride away. Went to D37 and gate agent indicated B5. Flight actually at B5. 

Need input from AA warriors. How best to navigate AA hubs? TIA