signal.signal_查看Signal WordPress托管报告摘要

signal.signal

On the web there’s no shortage of companies to choose from. Unfortunately choosing a host often is a matter of trial and error because it’s difficult to separate the quality providers from the subpar companies. Even Googling for web hosting reviews often is useless as most review sites are owned by hosting companies and filled with affiliate links. In other cases, many hosting brands are owned by the same parent company, making it difficult to escape issues caused by your current host.

在网络上，不乏可供选择的公司。 不幸的是，选择主机通常是一个反复试验的问题，因为很难将质量提供者与劣等公司区分开。 甚至谷歌搜索虚拟主机评论也常常是无用的，因为大多数评论网站都由托管公司所有，并充斥着会员链接。 在其他情况下，许多托管品牌都由同一母公司拥有，因此很难避免当前主机所引起的问题。

Fortunately Review Signal by Kevin Ohashi has published an extensive post discussing WordPress hosting benchmarks on a variety of hosts. In terms of evaluating the companies, the primary focus was on peak performance and consistency of service. The data from each host was gathered over a month to ensure that the data was accurate.

幸运的是，Kevin Ohashi撰写的Review Signal发表了一篇广泛的文章，讨论了各种主机上的WordPress主机基准测试。 在评估公司方面，主要关注于最佳性能和服务一致性。 每个月收集来自每个主机的数据，以确保数据准确。

Rather than just installing WordPress on hosting accounts blindly, Review Signal also went to the hosting providers directly and worked with them to ensure that every provider was using a uniform setup even if it required customizing security rules or performing other administrative work normally not required by the average customer.

不仅仅是盲目地在托管帐户上安装WordPress，Review Signal还直接与托管提供商进行了合作，以确保每个提供商都使用统一的设置，即使它需要自定义安全规则或执行通常不需要的安全性管理工作。普通客户。

Rather than repeating the entire report, below are a few key takeaways from the data:

下面是从数据中摘录的一些重要摘要，而不是重复整个报告：

持续交通测试 (Sustained Traffic Tests)

落后者 (The Laggards)

The first hosts to fail in testing, with only 100-1000 concurrent users over 30 minutes were Bluehost, DreamHost and Cloudways (both on Digital Ocean and AmazonAWS). According to the tests, DreamHost failed almost immediately due to a security mechanism being triggered due to the testing script with DreamHost being unwilling to help resolve the issue.

在30分钟内仅有100-1000个并发用户通过测试的首批主机失败，它们是Bluehost，DreamHost和Cloudways(均在Digital Ocean和AmazonAWS上)。 根据测试，DreamHost几乎立即失败，原因是由于测试脚本(DreamHost不愿意帮助解决问题)而触发了安全机制。

Also, it’s important to note that Cloudways serves as an overlay to help make it easier to manage AWS and Digital Ocean instances. With any unmanaged cloud service, whenever you add an overlay to simplify operations, that can hinder performance. Ultimately hosting is only as good as it’s weakest link making it important to look for providers which offer as lean a stack as permissible.

另外，请务必注意，Cloudways可以作为叠加层来帮助您更轻松地管理AWS和Digital Ocean实例。 对于任何非托管云服务，每当您添加覆盖以简化操作时，都可能会降低性能。 最终，托管仅是其最弱的链接，因此寻找能够提供尽可能精简堆栈的提供商非常重要。

优胜者 (The Winners)

In the second round of tests for sustained loads of 500-2000 concurrent users over 30 minutes, the winners were: Kinsta, Pantheon and Media Temple. GoDaddy, which recently bought out Media Temple also made it to the top of the test results.

在30分钟内持续进行500-2000个并发用户负载的第二轮测试中，获胜者是：Kinsta，万神殿和Media Temple。 最近收购Media Temple的GoDaddy也成为测试结果的佼佼者。

浪涌测试 (Surge Tests)

落后者 (The Laggards)

The first providers which floundered in the tests of 1-1000 concurrent users over 60 seconds were Bluehost, DreamHost and Nexcess. With DreamHost these issues may have been triggered by the hosts security limits, meaning that in a real world environment, DreamHost might hold up better with normal traffic. Nexcess however buckled after only 30 seconds of traffic.

最早在60秒内对1-1000个并发用户进行测试的提供商是Bluehost，DreamHost和Nexcess。 使用DreamHost，这些问题可能是由主机的安全限制触发的，这意味着在现实环境中，DreamHost在正常流量下可能会更好地承受。 Nexcess仅在经过30秒的流量后就屈服了。

Although not necessarily a huge issue, Cloudways had error/timeout rates between 0.5%-2%. although they held out in this round, if you’re looking for hosting built for mission critical environments, this can be significant sticking point.

尽管不一定是一个大问题，但Cloudways的错误/超时率在0.5％-2％之间。 尽管他们在这一轮中表现出色，但是如果您正在寻找针对关键任务环境构建的托管服务，这可能是一个重要的坚持点。

In the second round of testing with 1-2000 concurrent users over 60 seconds, Cloudways completely failed as did Bluehost, DreamHost, Nexcess and PressLabs.

在60秒内对1-2000个并发用户进行的第二轮测试中，Cloudways完全失败，Bluehost，DreamHost，Nexcess和PressLabs也完全失败。

优胜者 (The Winners)

At the start of the surge testing, for 1-1000 concurrent users over 60 seconds, the winners were A Small Orange, FlyWheel, GoDaddy, Kinsta, LightningBase, MediaTemple, Pagely, Pantheon, SiteGround, WebSynthesis which all had near perfect results in this round.

在电涌测试开始时，在60秒内有1-1000个并发用户，获奖者是A Small Orange，FlyWheel，GoDaddy，Kinsta，LightningBase，MediaTemple，Pagely，Pantheon，SiteGround，WebSynthesis，在这些方面都取得了近乎完美的结果回合。

For the tests involving 1-2000 concurrent users over 60 seconds, the winners were: A Small Orange, FlyWheel, GoDaddy, Kinsta, LightningBase, MediaTemple, Pagely, Pantheon and WebSynthesis. Those hosts all had error rates around 0.5% or lower.

对于涉及1-2000个并发用户且时间超过60秒的测试，获胜者为：小橘子，FlyWheel，GoDaddy，Kinsta，LightningBase，MediaTemple，Pagely，Pantheon和WebSynthesis。 这些主机的错误率均在0.5％或更低。

正常运行时间测量 (Uptime Measurement)

In the tests by Review Signal, none of the hosts tested had uptime lower than 99.5%. Other than MediaTemple and Bluehost, all the hosts had over 99.9% uptime. To put this in perspective, 99.5% uptime is 3.5 hours of downtime per month. 99.9% is <45 minutes of downtime per month.

在Review Signal的测试中，没有一个主机的正常运行时间低于99.5％。 除了MediaTemple和Bluehost，所有主机的正常运行时间均超过99.9％。 从这个角度来看，99.5％的正常运行时间是每月3.5小时的停机时间。 99.9％是每月少于45分钟的停机时间。

Although this wasn’t mentioned on the Review Signal tests, when evaluating a web host, you shouldn’t ever take their service level agreement (SLA) guarantees at face value. This is because it’s fairly easy for hosts to fudge the numbers and make unrealistic promises. Hosts often guarantee uptime, but often the fine print of those guarantees makes it nearly impossible for a customer to collect on a claim.

尽管在Review Signal测试中没有提到这一点，但是在评估Web主机时，您绝对不应从表面上接受其服务水平协议(SLA)保证。 这是因为主机很容易捏造数字并做出不切实际的承诺。 主机通常会保证正常运行时间，但是通常这些保证书的精巧之处使得客户几乎无法索取索赔。

选择合适的主人 (Choosing the Right Host)

As with most things in life, there’s no right or wrong answer when it comes to choosing a web host. As web development is such a vast field, finding a host to fit your needs can only be done by considering multiple factors. If you’re looking for a way to make better decisions, SitePoint has a primer on the considerations you should keep in mind when shopping for a hosting company.

与生活中的大多数事情一样，选择虚拟主机没有正确或错误的答案。 由于Web开发是一个广阔的领域，因此只能通过考虑多个因素来找到适合您需求的主机。 如果您正在寻找做出更好决策的方法， SitePoint会为您介绍在购买托管公司时应牢记的注意事项。

翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/review-signal-wordpress-hosting-report-summary/

signal.signal